On 10 May 2001, Lars Clausen wrote:
>
> Here's a problem with groups I just noticed: Grouping objects destroys
> their depths. When you create a group, it becomes a new object on top of
> the other objects, and the depth of the objects is ignored. Try this:
>
> Create three partially overlapping rectangles. Select the two lowest.
> Group them. They jump to the front.
>
> The objects in the group retain their relative depth, which is good. But
> the group object should not really have a depth of its own, rather the
> individual objects should be at their original depths. (And the
> Group/Ungroup operations should be idempotent inverses.) That, however, is
> tricky to do with the current implicit ordering.
>
> Is this something we should work on? Have anyone been bothered by this? I
> only noticed now that I look at groups for XFig.
I always considered groups as being a single object. It sounds a bit
weird for another object to be `in between' a group. Maybe creating a
group shouldn't cause the objects to raise to the top of the stack, but
grouped objects have always acted as one position in the depth stack in
all the drawing software I have used.
James.
--
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.daa.com.au/~james/
