![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/31a1716c856fa74a9c6e823a21ee1040.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
bulia byak wrote:
No. You can create different objects. Some of the objects are paths. Some are shapes. Some are neither. What's wrong with that? Why can you use "paths" as a term but cannot use "shapes" as another term?
A trapezoid is a shape, but you can't create it with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tools in Inkscape in such a way that you can use one of those tools to transform it later. A trapezoid is a "shape" whether I draw it in Inkscape or with a ruler and pencil on a piece of paper. A trapezoid I draw on a piece of paper is not a "path" or an "object". "Paths" is not a term typically used in art or illustration, and (for the benefit of you programmers) doesn't have a "conflicting namespace" in everyday English. If you were insisting on calling a "path" a "line" I would probably have the same issue. Objects include things that aren't shapes, so that's not a very descriptive term. So, "shapes" play a role in talking about illustrations, illustrating and illustration applications that is more generic than "an object made with the Eillipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tools," more accessible and meaningful to artists than "path", and more specific than "object." That's what's wrong with that.
What's wrong with referring to "shapes made with the Ellipse, Rectangle, Spiral or Star tools that can still be transformed with the tool that created them" by calling them "live shapes"? I think that's one heck of an easy optimization that doesn't have the downside of hijacking the otherwise useful word "shapes" for such narrow purposes.