On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:59:37AM +0100, Martin Treusch von Buttlar <mtvb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> firstly, sorry for the long delay. A public holiday in parts of germany.
And I enjoyed it very much ;->
> to clarify this a bit consider this script (sorry for the clumsy
I can see what you mean now.
> perl - its my graphiclanguage-to-perl-translator,
Tell me more about this translator, please ;->
> Though both are positioned at equal y positions they are not on the
> same text-baseline.
Yes.
> Now, why does gimp_text put the top of Äq and ru on the same line.
Because gimp_text returns a layer of minimal size. Not because its the
most logical thing to do, it just works that way.
> The bottom of ru should be on the same y-pos as the baseline of Äq.
While I think it would be a nice option you didn´t really convince me that
this is the way to go.
With the current behaviour you can (relatively) easy get the semantics you
want. With your new proposed semantics, it would be close to impossible to
get the old semantics (you would basically need to count pixels).
To put it another way: it´s a minor inconvinience to you, but I don´t
see how one could implement filters/render/fit-text with your proposed
semantics.
> BTW: Using the gimp-GUI does produce a different result.
I get _exactly_ the same result under the gui!
> textlayers have the same height now, though ru is still at the top.
I get different sized layers.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
