Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IMHO not because you're abusing the real value for errors and thus one
variable for 2 purposes which is a bad idea and using signed integers is
dragging down performance.
It is also a bad idea to use signed integers for most loops for example;
unsigned int
Continuing Bolsh's thread...
My current project is to proofread all the strings in the program. I am
trying to standardize things like proper use of plug-in so the user is
presented with a consistent use of language in the interface. I am also
trying to improve standardization of strings as
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
(http://www.imagemagick.org).
Right now you'd need to get
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For image web galleries, I'd suggest they use GIMP in batch mode
to convert to another format or to create the thumbnails directly.
That would probably have been a way to go for ImageMagick too.
For whatever reason, most (all?) of
On 3 Dec, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
Why? If a function is explicitly documented as returning an error,
it's the caller's responsibility to handle it.
Right.
The callee often doesn't know the high level context to handle it in a
useful fashion.
I'm talking about nested function calls. If a
On 3 Dec, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
By how much?
Depends on the code and the compiler. And the range I'm talking about
is usually between 0 and 50% improvement in both code and size.
If it can't be measured, it's probably not enough to be
worthwhile.
Aside from the gains it's IMHO also
Hi Leonard,
I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, this will be
exceptionally useful to users of ImageMagick. Its not at all an uncommon
request on gimp-user or the gimp newsgroup. Batch conversion is still best
handled via the commandline, and having the ability to use
Maybe I said this before, I can't remember, but the standard for trying
to describe generic metadata is Dublin Core. So before burning too much
midnight oil trying to organise metadata into neat categories at least
type Dublin Core into a search engine. Even if one decided that DC
itself was
On Tuesday, 4 Dec 2001, Seth Burgess wrote:
I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, this will be
exceptionally useful to users of ImageMagick. Its not at all an uncommon
request on gimp-user or the gimp newsgroup. Batch conversion is still best
handled via the
On 4 Dec, Sven Neumann wrote:
this is not true. Please stop spreading this nonsense about unsigned
integers being more performant than signed ones. Go and write yourself
a simple benchmark for the code you mentioned above and you will
notice that it doesn't make any difference at all.
At 06:06 AM 12/4/2001 -0800, Seth Burgess wrote:
I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF,
I am pretty sure that I do, but I'll hack up some files and try it
out. It already deal with the differences between the old and new headers.
Now, I don't expect it to be easy
Appreciated. But it does sound like you'd also not be interested
in my adding XCF writing support to ImageMagick then either??! (which is
fine, I have other things to work on ;).
My two cents ... Personally, I am in favor of XCF support in ImageMagick.
Bill Sebok Computer
Hi,
Jon Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, this is bothersome. I expect XCF to grow and change and improve but I
also expect a certain amount of backwards compatability.
I'm using Gimp in a production environment and I'm storing all of my
original artwork images (anything with layers)
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:06:56PM +0100, René [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There will be a new version of xcf eventually - so what? I'll use
imagemagick today, and if no-one finds it worth the time implementing
support for the new(er) version(s) I'm no worse off than if it hadn't been
Okay. This has gone too far.
Both sides made mistakes. How about we all admit that? Mitch and Sven
should have talked to Daniel offlist first. Perhaps requiring patches
posted to gimp-dev is going too far.
Daniel: GIMP isn't ready for optimizations. You should have talked to
Kelly before
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:17:06PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
agains 0 for example than against negativeness and this part also plays
a role when returning 0 or non-null instead of a negative value.
Sorry, but before you continue with all this, ehrm, wrongness, would you
please first
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:28:07AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ImageMagick can read xcf files using delegates for quite some time,
btw. Of course, gimp must be installed for this to work.
Right, you could have always done this - but it would have meant
having
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote:
ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
[...]
In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
(in Copyright.txt).
(and I think it is very much BSD-like).
Right. And I was wrong in my previous comment: the
I have been messing with the AUTHORS, MAINTAINERS and PLUGIN_MAINTAINERS
files. I have been checking the information and making little xml tags
for them.
I started to use docbook style tags for them. I will limp along with
this overkill method of tagging things (as Syngin and Simon have
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Raphael Quinet wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote:
ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
[...]
In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
(in Copyright.txt).
(and I think it is very much BSD-like).
Right.
Hi Rebecca,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2001-12-04 at 1737.58 +0100):
Can't we all bask in the gimp love?
Not to split hairs, but isn't it gimplove with no space?
carol
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 12:16 PM 12/4/2001 -0600, Stephen J Baker wrote:
(Although it *does* mean that ImageMagick had better not be using
any GIMP code to help out it's decode/display of XCF's or it'll be
in breach of GPL)
No GIMP code - at least not verbatim.
We don't use glib and we have our
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Nick Lamb wrote:
Maybe I said this before, I can't remember, but the standard for trying
to describe generic metadata is Dublin Core. So before burning too much
midnight oil trying to organise metadata into neat categories at least
type Dublin Core into a search
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Dave Neary wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
Some time ago, I submitted two bug reports about this:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56443 (EXIF and metadata)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61499 (editing
Dave Neary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote about his current project.
I think I should do the same too, despite the fact that there is no
real code yet.
I am currently thinking about a new infrastructure in Gimp for vector
image data. Originated from frustration about the current path tool
(both -
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:07:23PM +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Dave Neary wrote:
That has been thought of, and I don't think that one metadata
structure rules that out. In a way, it's just one bucket in which
we store the various pieces of information. Of course each
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:35:55AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
Don't you have to maintain backwards compatibility with your own
user base? I certainly expect that you will change things to support new
features (CMYK, etc.), but since old GIMP users have to be able to read
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:34:59AM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
the side effects of unsigned integers are not what people are used to
think about when designing an algorithm. You are changing the
mathematical base in an unneeded and hardly foreseeable way. Code that
looks correct and used to
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:39:36PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm talking about nested function calls. If a function deep inside fails
it should be handled as quickly as possible instead of propagating it
through the code.
Uh, this is C, not Scheme. We don't throw exceptions. Calling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2001-12-04 at 2141.20 +0100):
We need a Object-structure to be able to store and handle vector imagedata.
I am not sure about how far we should go in this way, or where is the
point to leave this stuff to other programs like sketch or sodipodi.
If there is a lib for all
On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote:
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
Leonard Rosenthol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked
support for reading (writing will come
On 4 Dec, Sven Neumann wrote:
Check the code if you don't believe it.
Sorry, but that's exactly what I did before I posted the reply and I'm
asking you to do that too. A simple benchmark prooves that the example
you gave is wrong since the use of unsigned variables doesn't make any
I'm currently in end-of-semester crunch time, so I won't be working on
Gimp until after all of my semester projects are done.
The IRC addicts are probably already aware that my plans for after that
are:
* implement tool plug-ins with as little disturbance to the rest of Gimp
as is reasonable.
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 12:07:56AM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not directly read XML in a plugin and apply some inline defined
styles to it? Just an idea...
it might be a good idea to keep the help pages in a format that can
be read with standard browsers ?!
This
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:36:50PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The possibility to save the data indepently of the image format in a
separate file a good idea but doesn't speak against using parasites
for metadata.
In fact, it's trivial to implement another Load/Save-Plug-In
36 matches
Mail list logo
