[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-kimageshop
Subject:    Re: protection masks and selections
From:       Boudewijn Rempt <boud () valdyas ! org>
Date:       2007-05-19 16:03:33
Message-ID: 200705191803.33336.boud () valdyas ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Saturday 19 May 2007, Casper Boemann wrote:
> On Saturday 19 May 2007 13:23, Cyrille Berger wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 May 2007, Casper Boemann wrote:
> > > > And what should the deprecated selectedness() return :)
> > >
> > > What the selection defines just as today. Only problem is that it won't
> > > take protection masks into account.
> > >
> > > I chose the deprecation road rather than just reuse selectedness() to
> > > make sure we change every place that uses selectedness() to indicate
> > > writabillity.
> >
> > Well anyway, if we agree that selection serves for read and
> > write-protection, and that when we might want a different behaviour, it
> > creates a new layer, then the problem is solved by itself :D
>
> my thought exactly - now we only need the agreement of boudewijn and other
> interested parties

Sure getting rid of either the protection mask _or_ the difference between 
read, write and read/write selections is fine with me. Moving the selected 
pixels to another layer in the transform tool or similar is fine with me too. 
If, Especially, and only, the selection on the original layer is kept intact. 
That is, if I rotate a selection and the rotated pixels arrive on another 
layer, I want to be able to go back and delete the original pixels.

-- 
Boudewijn Rempt 
http://www.valdyas.org/fading/index.cgi

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
kimageshop mailing list
kimageshop@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]