11:18 a.m.
Hi,
Could we possibly try to include two currently disabled LPEs into
0.47? I'm particularly talking about:
1. Mirror symmetrically, which resolves multiple times requested
symmetric drawing mode
2. Booloops, which makes Spiro a lot more useful.
For now I moved all entries for currently disabled LPEs and the LPE
tool itself from POTFILES.in to a newly created POTFILES.ignore so
that translators have less problems.
Alexandre
2:25 p.m.
2009/5/22 Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre.prokoudine@...400...>
Hi,
Could we possibly try to include two currently disabled LPEs into
0.47? I'm particularly talking about:
1. Mirror symmetrically, which resolves multiple times requested
symmetric drawing mode
2. Booloops, which makes Spiro a lot more useful.
About the mirror lpe, I don't know: I find it usefull right now, but it is
supposed to be part of the "geometric tools", which are not ready yet, and
be refactored at some point. I'd follow Johan opinion about this.
As for boolops, I didn't try it recently, but it has a lot of bugs, mostly
on 2geom side if I'm not wrong: it turns out mgs is currently refactoring
2geom boolops code. It's about to be finished, but I doubt we'll have enough
time to test this enough to add it to the release...
Moreover, the behavior of this lpe with respect to transform looks strange
to me (when the operator B is a clone of another object), and should be
emproved. (I confess I'm still not 100% convinced by the way we handle
transforms in lpes, but this is an old story, and I don't want to reopen it
now ;-) ).
Cheers, jfb.
2:46 p.m.
What about the "rule" lpe?
I like it, although I don't use it so often. Shall we add it?
(the only emprovement I can think of would be to add numbers, but this is
out of reach with current lpes...)
3:05 p.m.
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM, jf barraud wrote:
About the mirror lpe, I don't know: I find it usefull right now,
but it is
supposed to be part of the "geometric tools", which are not ready yet, and
be refactored at some point. I'd follow Johan opinion about this.
Johan, hello? :)
As for boolops, I didn't try it recently, but it has a lot of
bugs, mostly
on 2geom side if I'm not wrong: it turns out mgs is currently refactoring
2geom boolops code.
Yep, and I've seen crashes.
What about the "rule" lpe?
Well, it is mentioned in Cedric's book on Inkscape already :)
Alexandre
3:38 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandre Prokoudine [mailto:alexandre.prokoudine@...400...]
Sent: dinsdag 2 juni 2009 17:06
To: jf barraud
Cc: Inkscape Devel List
Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] LPEs for 0.47, take two
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM, jf barraud wrote:
> About the mirror lpe, I don't know: I find it usefull right
now, but it is
> supposed to be part of the "geometric tools", which are not
ready yet, and
> be refactored at some point. I'd follow Johan opinion about this.
Johan, hello? :)
Sorry I don't spend much time on Inkscape dev, don't let me hold you
back!
> As for boolops, I didn't try it recently, but it has a lot
of bugs, mostly
> on 2geom side if I'm not wrong: it turns out mgs is
currently refactoring
> 2geom boolops code.
Yep, and I've seen crashes.
lpe-boolops must wait for 0.48, imho.
> What about the "rule" lpe?
Well, it is mentioned in Cedric's book on Inkscape already :)
Please don't wait for a comment from me when making an LPE "official" or
not. (please do commit a testcase to the testsuite!!!)
If I don't have something to add for the discussion, I won't write :-)
Just make sure the LPE is useable and try to look into the future to see
whether the effect will become redundant or has to be changed
significantly in a newer version of Inkscape.
I disabled many LPEs because they were buggy, hard to use, unfinished or
just untested. Make advice is to make sure all "official" LPEs do well
on those criteria.
Cheers,
Johan
5228
days inactive
5239
days old
inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
unknown＠example.com -
Alexandre Prokoudine -
jf barraud