On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Téo Mazars <teomazars@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I am not convinced. The way it's done is fine in my opinion, mainly because > it doesn't duplicate the implementation. What you suggest would be to create > specialized meta operations foo-linear and foo-perceptual on top of foo with > fixed "srgb" parameters and to hide foo... Right? I am not sure why this > would help for anything, but I don't see anything wrong. Do note that compositors/layer modes being parameter-less permits doing things like more easily using them as properties of other/meta-nodes using these ops internally, if the behavior changes based on an additional boolean we do not get that. It also means that for a directly generated UI based on GEGL data-structures; this boolean toggle would is exposed. The desire to do any (compositing) ops in arbitrary color spaces is what should be dealt with by wrapping things in meta-ops; permitting to cast data to CIE Lab, sRGB or even HSV. In the case of over and other standard layer-mode ops, I would rather duplicate the implementation - considering them to be actually different compositing ops. The amount of actual code duplication should amount to _one_ additional line in the ruby code that generates most of GEGLs compositing operations. /pippin _______________________________________________ gegl-developer-list mailing list List address: gegl-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gegl-developer-list
