On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 04:32:27PM +0100, Raphael Quinet <quinet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> familiar with this code could help me a bit or add some documentation
> to the undo code, then I will attempt to fix gimp_undo_push_group_start.
I can understand this, but how about just _replacing_ these two pdb functions
by functions that do the equivalent of what you are doing?
> feature freeze into account.
I delcare these are bug-fixes ;)
> everything in the current image, and so on. I prefer to let each
> script do exactly what it wants to do, instead of copying the whole
> image every time.
There are serious drawbacks to this way of doing it that IMHO outweight
the memory-savings:
- third-party-scripts will not profit form this.
- only you will understand how it's done
- it requires a relatively complicated source change (rather than just
a renamed function).
> On the other hand, wrapping this into two PDB calls would indeed look
> much cleaner (even if the internals are still ugly) and it would be
> easier to implement this in a better way later.
Would it be possible to mimic the semantics of the undo_group-functions?
Maybe these could just be replaced (perfect). But I would really
prefer two pdb calls, if that is possible (maybe similar to the export
functionality).
> So... errr... I don't know what to do. Does anybody have strong
> preferences
very strong ;) how large is the speed/memory penalty?
> Or a third one (fixing gimp_undo_push_group_start)?
I think doing this "right" before 1.2 is faaar to complicated.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
