On 3/27/06, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > "Gerald Friedland" <fractor@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > True. As long as you have got an appropiate selection too, you could > > select the object, fill it, and you are done. A "natural" bucket fill > > would just be a short cut to this process. > > Do we really need the overhead in code and complexity to achieve > something that can be easily done in two steps? I think that using the > selection tools followed by a fill is the natural way to achieve the > desired effect and it is also a lot more flexible than a dedicated > tool. Maybe I'm not understanding what's wanted here, but I get the impression that they're talking about a tool that you could use to e.g. change the color of a shirt someone is wearing without loosing the lighting and shading. That would be a pretty cool tool to have, and I can imagine a decent algorithm for doing it, but I can't think of a reasonable way to do it with the existing tools. > If someone wants to put effort into a specialised tool, maybe it could > be a red-eye-removal tool because that is really an often requested > feature and it is not easily achievable using a combination of the > existing tools. Again, yes, a useful tool. But I think that before we go about making more tools, we finally implement pluggable tools. To avoid the problems we had last time, I suggest that we come up with a sane tool API, implement it in the core, port several tools over to it, and then after it's fairly stable worry about finding a way to do things out-of-process. Nathan _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
