When you enter a group, the layer selector in the statusbar shows only the ancestors of the group, while regular layers that are siblings of the parent layer disappear. Is there a reason for this? I would much prefer it to always show siblings of each ancestor layer. Without this, to go to the layer above, I have to use the widget twice: once to go up from the group and then again go to the layer above.
On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 14:11, bulia byak wrote:
When you enter a group, the layer selector in the statusbar shows only the ancestors of the group, while regular layers that are siblings of the parent layer disappear. Is there a reason for this? I would much prefer it to always show siblings of each ancestor layer. Without this, to go to the layer above, I have to use the widget twice: once to go up from the group and then again go to the layer above.
That should be doable. I did it the way I did to cut down on the complexity of managing listeners and updates, since we had the release coming soon and I was in a hurry to finish.
-mental
On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 00:10, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 14:11, bulia byak wrote:
When you enter a group, the layer selector in the statusbar shows only the ancestors of the group, while regular layers that are siblings of the parent layer disappear. Is there a reason for this? I would much prefer it to always show siblings of each ancestor layer. Without this, to go to the layer above, I have to use the widget twice: once to go up from the group and then again go to the layer above.
That should be doable. I did it the way I did to cut down on the complexity of managing listeners and updates, since we had the release coming soon and I was in a hurry to finish.
You know, this does raise a more important question: should we just go ahead and show all layers in the selector?
The only reason I'm hesitant to was out of concern it might get unnavigably large with a large document, but in the most common case (only top-level layers) it'll be as large as it can get anyway.
-mental
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:26:24 -0500, MenTaLguY <mental@...3...> wrote:
You know, this does raise a more important question: should we just go ahead and show all layers in the selector?
Not all layers, but all siblings of the ancestor of the current.
The only reason I'm hesitant to was out of concern it might get unnavigably large with a large document, but in the most common case (only top-level layers) it'll be as large as it can get anyway.
If you have too many layers, just group them into a tree. Not seeing layers in the parallel branches of the tree will is I think a good compromise between "show all" and the current behavior.
participants (2)
-
bulia byak -
MenTaLguY