>> Nothing is forced -- just don't use it.
>
>Yes, you are forced to switch tools in your scheme when you were not in
>the other, and vice versa.
Not every image would have an active tool set. Normally you have the
current tool on every image, as it works now. Only if an image has
an active tool set on, would the current tool be changed at focus-in.
When you move off the "active tool on" image, everything would work
normally among the rest of the images.
>idea. I also think that making this a preferences option is a very bad
It cannot be put into preferences! It is not something which is set
permanently. You are thinking clearly something else than me.
It is also imagewise operation, not a global.
I see that the system I suggest only improves the situation. Please
describe a case where it fails? I have already shown a case where it
improves the situation a lot.
>> aside. For most people "active tool" system would do nothing, and rest
>> gains very much about it.
>
>I disagree.
Well, it is the fact that most of the people don't even realize about
existence of such system if they wish, and that it helps people who
works like me. It is not a matter of opinion. If it is, you have most
probably understood wrong.
>I think I can understand the idea ;) It's just that I almost always have
>many images open, and want to use the same tool for all of them.
That happen in my system if you don't set an active tool for any image;
it is on your hands. The default case is that no active tools are set.
The image menu could have an entries "set active tool"/"remove active tool".
If you don't touch to them, the system works as it works now. Simple as that.
This is not for preferences because the active tool is only a temporary
setting, even for me.
I see nothing in this system which could disturb you. Please rethink it.
I would like to implement it myself and then you would see it yourself,
but I cannot lift out from my own free software project for next couple
of months.
What others think about the suggested system? Naturally, this could be
extended later as suggested elsewhere (user could set an environment for
an individual image).
Yours,
Juhana
