bulia byak wrote:
On 8/3/05, Kevin Wixson <kevin@...738...> wrote:
I illustrated the question at http://www.angelfire.com/mi/kevincharles/inkscape/division.html
What you propose might be useful too, but (1) I don't see a persuasive use case and
Strictly speaking, can't the same effect as Division can be achieved with two copies of the two objects and performing Difference on one set and Intersection on and the other? So, Division's purpose is already one of convenience and productivity without any other real obvious reason. Why not just expand that idea to include the leftover area of the top shape as well, thus making it possible to simply select and deleted the unwanted bits? Isn't that also productive, or even more so? Otherwise, the method of making two copies and preforming Exclusion on one and Intersection on the other set is necessary, which is not as productive as just deleting the unwanted section to achieve the same result as the current Division command.
I use this kind of feature all the time in other programs, and where what I need is just the two of the three bits, I erase what I don't need. Much easier, I think, since I also don't have to worry about what the stacking order is.
But if you need a compelling use case, consider making a stained glass image effect, where you're cutting things apart so you can give them different fills, and you certainly don't want to be losing bits of the shapes in the process.
(2) if implemented it would not be called "divisiion" anyway.
I don't see why not, since it's still dividing two shapes into component parts, the bottom cutout, the intersection, and top cutout. It's still dividing the image. But you can call it something else that makes more sense if you think it's really necessary.
-Kevin