On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Carl Worth <cworth@...573...> wrote:
But that doesn't make any sense for drawing something that's *not* *even* *there* anymore, (in the case that you've drawn something and then erased it again).
I'm not talking about that at all. I'm not going to use inversion to "delete" anything :) It is just a very convenient way to mark an area while keeping all the objects in it clearly discernible. It is a pretty common usage to invert text selection. It may also have very legitimate artistic uses.
Seriously, I don't understand why "inversion" is an interesting operator at all. It's not too hard to construct a background on which your inverted objects are virtually impossible to see, right?
No. I want to use inversion on an area, not on separate objects. If objects were standing out from the background without inversion, they will stand out just as much after the entire area is inverted. That's the whole point.