>> 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. Not every image would have an active tool set. Normally you have the current tool on every image, as it works now. Only if an image has an active tool set on, would the current tool be changed at focus-in. When you move off the "active tool on" image, everything would work normally among the rest of the images. >idea. I also think that making this a preferences option is a very bad It cannot be put into preferences! It is not something which is set permanently. You are thinking clearly something else than me. It is also imagewise operation, not a global. I see that the system I suggest only improves the situation. Please describe a case where it fails? I have already shown a case where it improves the situation a lot. >> aside. For most people "active tool" system would do nothing, and rest >> gains very much about it. > >I disagree. Well, it is the fact that most of the people don't even realize about existence of such system if they wish, and that it helps people who works like me. It is not a matter of opinion. If it is, you have most probably understood wrong. >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. That happen in my system if you don't set an active tool for any image; it is on your hands. The default case is that no active tools are set. The image menu could have an entries "set active tool"/"remove active tool". If you don't touch to them, the system works as it works now. Simple as that. This is not for preferences because the active tool is only a temporary setting, even for me. I see nothing in this system which could disturb you. Please rethink it. I would like to implement it myself and then you would see it yourself, but I cannot lift out from my own free software project for next couple of months. What others think about the suggested system? Naturally, this could be extended later as suggested elsewhere (user could set an environment for an individual image). Yours, Juhana
