Sven Neumann (sven@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> The problem with readjustable selections is that selections are
> basically grayscale masks. So what appears as a rectangular selection
> to you is just a buffer of numbers to The GIMP. Readjusting the
> selection basically means transforming this grayscale mask. Such a
> transformation will always introduce errors and fuzzyness.
>
> In order to improve this, we should probably ditch the rect and
> ellipse select tools and replace them with vector tools. The path tool
> as it is implemented now is just a special case of a vectors tools and
> it shouldn't be too hard to implement tools to create basic
> shapes. These shapes could then be converted to a selection, just like
> Path->To Selection works now. But I think that's exactly what you were
> proposing also, isn't it?
>
> > This would, of course, make selection CSG operations more difficult.
>
> Simon said that implementing CSG operations on vectors would be not
> feasible. But IMO it would be a prerequisite for better selection
> tools. Since Inkscape introduced add, subtract, intersect and union
> for vector shapes lately, I don't see why we shouldn't manage to do
> the same.
Ok, maybe you misunderstood me or I expressed it the wrong way: It would
of course would be very good to have CSG operations available, but I am
not particularily eager to implement them: I don't have a lot of
experience dealing with the floating point issues that are basically
unavoidable. The stuff in libart unfortunately only operates on straight
line segments, which is not feasible when dealing with user-created
objects (you don't want to make beziers a sequence of straight lines,
when the user should be able to edit that stuff after the CSG
operation...).
I did not yet look at the stuff in Inkscape.
Bye,
Simon
--
Simon.Budig@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
