Hi Juergen,

yes, of course we should add that stuff, that's what I had in mind. I already 
have a grep on the task, just wanted to give some background information.
thanks go to regina for alwas bringing something forward!

--
ALG (iPad)

> Am 04.12.2013 um 09:07 schrieb Jürgen Schmidt <[email protected]>:
> 
>> On 12/3/13 6:05 PM, Armin Le Grand wrote:
>>    Hi Regina,
>> 
>>> On 02.12.2013 23:45, Regina Henschel wrote:
>>> Hi Andrea,
>>> 
>>> Andrea Pescetti schrieb:
>>>>> On 26/11/2013 Regina Henschel wrote:
>>>>> I have expanded the standard.soe with some arrow heads with hole. The
>>>>> file is attached to
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=123758.
>>>>> If you like them, we can consider to use this palette as default.
>>>> 
>>>> I added a screenshot to the issue for clearer comparison. The new styles
>>>> are nice and it would be good to have them in 4.1.
>>>> 
>>>> In some cases, in the preview, I see the main line of the arrow going
>>>> (seemingly) too far within the arrow head, see
>>>> http://imagebin.org/280257 for an example. Is this wanted?
>>> 
>>> No, that is not wanted. I will explain the problem in more detail:
>> 
>> First: nice arrowheads! I am currently on something else, but I have
>> already a grep on the task which you wrote.
>> 
>> Background:
>> - The arrows traditionally only used polygons (topologically: no
>> poly-polygons which allows holes). This is alrteady changed and
>> implemented.
>> - The arrow heads and line overlapping traditionally use a 0.0 or 0.8
>> factor of overlap, according to 0% or 80% overlap. These values are
>> handles relative to the arrow head sizes already, but are treated as a
>> boolean (one or the other). In the core these values are prepared to be
>> 0-100%, freely choosable. In the UI you can switch between 0% and 80% in
>> the lines dialog in it's first page (line ends-> 'centered' for right
>> and left arrow). Missing is to have a value input instead of that simple
>> switch and to get that 0-100% value over the API and to ODF. This is
>> where normally Regina knows if this is possible ;-)
>> Thus: Old. historical limitations, some more way to go to get over
>> these. When one day it will be possible to choose that value freely
>> (prepared in core and primitives) you will be able to trim these to
>> connect to your arrow head as you want it to be.
>> If there would be a way to do this automatically could also be
>> considered; the old overlapping paint was probably only implemented
>> since no one wanted to do it better from the beginning (time constrains?
>> other?).
>> 
>> Regina, this sounds as if we could use a feature task for his...
>> 
> 
> Do I understand correct that with Reginas fix the arrows looks much
> better and the problem is less obvious.
> 
> If yes I would still integrate it because it is an improvement. And if
> possible improve it further later on. But we should not wait for a 100%
> solution that most of the user even don't recognize.
> 
> Well that is only my personal opinion.
> 
> Juergen
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> If you stop the line at the very place where the arrow head starts,
>>> you get a visible gap between the "square 45°" and the line itself for
>>> fat lines (and same for circle or any peak shape). Therefore an
>>> overlap was introduced. For the filled arrow heads, it does not matter
>>> whether the line is drawn a little bit longer.
>>> 
>>> For the arrow heads with hole you have to find a compromise between
>>> showing a gap at the outer part and showing a little bit line in the
>>> hole.
>>> 
>>> Currently the amount by which the line is drawn longer does not depend
>>> on the kind of arrow head, but on the length of the arrow head. It is
>>> in file polygonprimitive2d.cxx in method
>>> PolygonStrokeArrowPrimitive2D::create2DDecomposition around line#547
>>> the statement "fStart *= 0.8;"
>>> In LO I have changed that to "fStartOverlap = getStart().getWidth() /
>>> 15.0;", so that it depends on the width of the arrow head, which also
>>> determines the 'stroke' width in the non-filled arrow heads. It is a
>>> compromise too. (It is not really a 'stroke', but the area between two
>>> combined paths.)
>>> 
>>> We could copy that in AOO. But perhaps someone has a better idea?
>>> 
>>> Kind regards
>>> Regina
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to