On 6/29/11 8:58 PM, Jasper van de Gronde wrote:
On 30-06-11 02:51, Gellule Xg wrote:
I would like to draw your attention on this 2geom commit: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~inkscape.dev/inkscape/trunk/revision/10385 Should this be pushed to 2geom? I'm not too happy with the solution I chose for fixing part c) of this bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape/+bug/640985
How does a little instability cause a crash? Weird results, okay, but a crash? As far as I'm concerned your change is a bit dubious, but pragmatic and commonplace, but it should not solve a crash. So can you explain what causes the crash?
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Hi Jasper,
Connector-avoid is set on a circle. The circle is approximated by a set of points where two points are exactly at the same location (first one & last one). This seems to be because a circle is something like four 90deg arcs plus a straight line of length 0 to connect them. Now, when you move the circle around depending on the result of the transformation applied, the first and last points can be exactly at the same location or at slightly (epsilon) different locations. This causes the number of point making the convex for the circle to be variable of +/-1 point. The libavoid code does not accept this change.
Ah, ah. I should not have said crash, more the emission of an assertion by the libavoid code, reacting to this number of point change.
Hoping, I make sense...
Maybe making libavoid accept such a change would be a better solution.
-Julien