On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 02:14:56AM +0200, Juhana Sadeharju <kouhia@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I wonder if you're against of the "active tool" suggestion or not?
I am not against it, just against forcing people to always have to switch
tools (rather than being "able" to).
> I'm *now* "forced to switch to paintbrush for every image I have loaded
> in turn to draw to them" and if you dislike it too, then I don't
> understand why the new "active tool" feature would be a hindrance.
I would dislike if I had a different tool for every image. I *never*
needed that (but I often needed it the other way round). I guess (but of
course can't answre that) that this is the rule and not the exception.
> Nothing is forced -- just don't use it.
Yes, you are forced to switch tools in your scheme when you were not in
the other, and vice versa.
Neither way is perfect, so just changing this is a very very bad
idea. I also think that making this a preferences option is a very bad
idea. Designing a sensible UI for seperated/combined is, IMHO, ery
important.
> aside. For most people "active tool" system would do nothing, and rest
> gains very much about it.
I disagree.
> Maybe you just misunderstood the idea? Let me hear from you please;
> I don't want that good ideas are thrown away due misunderstandings.
I think I can understand the idea ;) It's just that I almost always have
many images open, and want to use the same tool for all of them.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
