Re: [Inkscape-devel] Help with more grid problems
No, this is wrong. You almost always want to snap to nodes. In the rare case that someone actually wants to snap to the bounding box they can use stroke to path to convert the shape to a new set of nodes. Please, don't start making preferences for everything!
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with this. But as soon as someone says "I myself use bbox snapping" then I'm ok, in this case, with making it optional. I agree about keeping preferences down where possible.
Let me repeat, I do see lots of use for bbox snapping.
When you snap a rect's sides to grid at 0mm and 10mm, you expect that rect to be exactly 10mm wide. With node snapping, it's not. So when I'm exporting a 10mm wide png, my rect will be clipped. (I'm sure someone will one day submit this as a bug, if we make node snapping the default.) Also what do I do if I want a row of rects with different stroke widths to all fit into the same width or height?
Actually, why argue - why can't we have both node and bbox snapping enabled all the time? I don't see why this won't work. Surely these snappoints will be close enough to each other, but if you do care at all about what you snap, chances are you work at a magnification high enough to distinguish them.
_________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI...
On Thu, 13 May 2004, bulia byak wrote:
No, this is wrong. You almost always want to snap to nodes. In the rare case that someone actually wants to snap to the bounding box they can use stroke to path to convert the shape to a new set of nodes. Please, don't start making preferences for everything!
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with this. But as soon as someone says "I myself use bbox snapping" then I'm ok, in this case, with making it optional. I agree about keeping preferences down where possible.
Let me repeat, I do see lots of use for bbox snapping.
When you snap a rect's sides to grid at 0mm and 10mm, you expect that rect to be exactly 10mm wide. With node snapping, it's not. So when I'm exporting a 10mm wide png, my rect will be clipped. (I'm sure someone will one day submit this as a bug, if we make node snapping the default.) Also what do I do if I want a row of rects with different stroke widths to all fit into the same width or height?
OK, that's fine. They're different use patterns, so AFAICS an option is no problem at all.
Actually, that example you gave opens another similar issue: snapping correctly on object creation as well as moving / scaling. But I think that can be made optional using the same UI as for move / scale snapping.
Actually, why argue - why can't we have both node and bbox snapping enabled all the time? I don't see why this won't work. Surely these snappoints will be close enough to each other, but if you do care at all about what you snap, chances are you work at a magnification high enough to distinguish them.
IMHO, the point of having /only/ node snapping is that you /don't/ have to work at a high magnification --- the program takes care of doing what you expect. Then when you look at things in detail you don't get any nasty surprises.
At some point I'll commit a patch which provides the choice, then perhaps everything will be clearer.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Carl
bulia byak wrote:
No, this is wrong. You almost always want to snap to nodes. In the rare case that someone actually wants to snap to the bounding box they can use stroke to path to convert the shape to a new set of nodes. Please, don't start making preferences for everything!
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy with this. But as soon as someone says "I myself use bbox snapping" then I'm ok, in this case, with making it optional. I agree about keeping preferences down where possible.
Let me repeat, I do see lots of use for bbox snapping.
When you snap a rect's sides to grid at 0mm and 10mm, you expect that rect to be exactly 10mm wide. With node snapping, it's not. So when I'm exporting a 10mm wide png, my rect will be clipped. (I'm sure someone will one day submit this as a bug, if we make node snapping the default.) Also what do I do if I want a row of rects with different stroke widths to all fit into the same width or height?
a possible aevil solution - make the nodes in a rect on the corners rather than in the middle of the stroke (I've always found midline stroke wrong for ellipses and rectangles. It just looks wrong, especially if you have a transparent stroke.) [1]
Actually, why argue - why can't we have both node and bbox snapping enabled all the time? I don't see why this won't work. Surely these snappoints will be close enough to each other, but if you do care at all about what you snap, chances are you work at a magnification high enough to distinguish them.
hehe...
njh [1] yes, the SVG spec.
participants (3)
-
bulia byak -
Carl Hetherington -
Nathan Hurst