On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:41:13PM -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
> Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 16 Dec 2002 21:39:02 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:
> > >
> > > Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > On 16 Dec 2002 18:26:26 +0100, Olivier Chapuis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:24:14AM -0600, FVWM CVS wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Log message:
> > > > > > * New {Title,Button}Style style StretchedPixmap
> > > > >
> > > > > I've added this because I think this useful and because it was a one
> > > > > line patch after the MultiPixmap merge. But in fact I think that
> > > > > something like "FitStretchedPixmap" is more useful (an other "one
> > > > > line patch"): stretch the pixmap only if it is to big for the
> > > > > destination. Does someone has a better name than
> > > > > "FitStretchedPixmap"?
> > > >
> > > > I hope I understand this correctly. I am sure there is a term in the
> > > > image processing field for this. If not, maybe:
> > > >
> > > > SprainedImage
> > >
> > > I don't think sprain is the right word.
> > >
> > > Sprain:
> > > 1.
> > > (tr.) to injure (a joint) by a sudden twisting or wrenching of its
> > > ligaments.
> > > 2.
> > > the resulting injury to such a joint, characterized by swelling
> > > and temporary disability.
> >
> > My one word to one word local translator translates it to the synonym of
> > "stretched". Poor bad dictionary, sorry.
> >
> > > Is the image stretched or shrunk? It sounds like its shrunk,
> > > never stretched.
> > >
> > > I think the options are:
> > >
> > > shrunk (made smaller)
> > > stretched (made bigger)
> > > fit (stretched or shrunk)
> >
> > Actually there are more options. :)
>
> Well, I was afraid of that...
>
> > For example, try the current:
> >
> > TitleStyle Active Pixmap /any/image.png
> >
> > If title width is small, only the left part of image.png is shown.
> > If title width is big, image.png is centered. Kind of FixedImage.
> >
> > For me this is useless. What I and hopefully Olivier mean is this:
> > If title width is small, only the left part of image.png is shown.
> > If title width is big, image.png is stretched.
>
I am not sure to understand.
> I think it makes sense to attack this from the point of view of the
> image, not the container. Ie.
>
> If the image is larger, its truncated.
This is the current Pixmap behavior
> If the image is smaller, its stretched.
>
The new StretchedPixmap do this, but also if the image is larger it's
resized to fit into the destination. Is "FitPixmap" ok for this?
We may add this behavior (If the image is smaller, its stretched, if
not do nothing) and name it StretchedPixmap (it is easy).
I do not want to add one tone of new Pixmap style type now (related to
tile and x/y directions). I see one style type which is useful *and*
easy to implement (I do not want to spent 2 hours or more to debug 10
new complicate style type): If the image is smaller do nothing (as
Pixmap), if the image is larger resize it to fit into the
destination. Is "ShrunkPixmap" ok?
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
