top flight ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This is my first post here.? Is the proper protocol to
> 1) post here to the mail lists?
> 2) put on the bug list?
> 3) both?
> ?

Well, since we are in a discussion here a post on the bug list
might be a bit too early. But yes, a enhancement request in
bugzilla will definitely get a response, but on the zooming
behaviour there are enough open bugs right now  :)

> In reference to the earlier discussion about uniform
> zooming scale factors, why not let the user choose his
> own (reasonable) scale factor in preferences? It
> could be set to sqrt(2) by default. The code
> below?rounds to the nearest multiple of the?factor.? I
> think it is an elegant solution which gives a lot of
> power to the user.

Well, we have a lot of preferences already and one can have
too much degrees of freedom. When I brought up different sets
of zoom presets available in the preferences, some people were
complaining, that preferences are just a sign of a lack of descision
competence  :-)

[ code snipped for arbitrary factors ]

As you might have seen in the earlier discussion, for some people it is
very important, to get sane ratios like 1:x as magnification factors.
Your approach of course would work, but usually result in ugly
fractions. The list of fractions from the earlier Mails were the result
of a compromise, a move back to "real floats" is not an option.

Personally I believe that only factors based on the n'th roots of two
are reasonable choices, since we usually want to have the double,
quadruple etc. sizes of the images in the list of zoom factors.

For a short time we had something based on the golden mean in CVS,
and it really felt clumsy, because it was so hard to hit the powers of
two as magnification factors...

sqrt(2) gives us two steps between each doubling of the size, and
it seems to be fine enough. I might experiment later with
2**(1/3), but that isn't really urgent now.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to