[while this is a rant, there is useful content in this mail]

Juhana Sadeharju ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >From:        Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >bashing on the current vectors framework since obviosuly you didn't
> >even look at it yet.
> The Path Tool framework was just mentioned to me.
> Then I quickly re-checked out those papers if somebody would actually
> want read them now. Only a good intention. But I got flamed.
> I have not bashed the current vector framework because I have not
> seen it yet.

May I quote yourself?

   "The selection tool vector drawing and the crop tool vector drawing
   are not visible in other views of the same image because the framework
   is kludge."

   "[...] missing completely the point in this kludge code"

Calling something a "kludge" *is* bashing, especially when you did not
even bother to look at it.

As I wrote earlier, I thought quite a lot about that stuff to get it
right. I rewrote it two times basically from scratch. I worked on this
for a really long time.

Now you come along, tell me that Gimps framework is a kludge and you
did not even look at it, but suggest me to read dozends of pages to
realize what is a cludge with my stuff.

And you expect me to take you seriously?

> What I want is written very clearly in the intro sections
> of those mentioned papers (published at 199?; in constraints/ dir
> at my site). If you don't even have an idea of what I'm talking about,
> how ever I could go in to details?

It would be a good idea to explain the basic ideas in a comprehensible

> The previous poster confused
> at level of a basic stright line vs. a Bezier curve; missing completely
> the point in this kludge code vs. constraints code discussion (started
> in gimp-user).

The original post I replied to (on gimp-user) does not contain the word
"constraint". In your second mail you also do not explain what you mean
by "constraint". In your first mail you wrote: 

   "What we need is a good old vertex/edge/polygon framework."

We *have* a vertex/edge/polygon framework, and the edges even can be
bezier segments, which is far more suitable for defining pretty common
curved shapes. But you called this a "kludge". And now you complain that
I get pissy?

> No need to ask me to repeat. I have mailed on constraints
> in several mails within last months, but nobody informed me
> that constraints are already implemented in GIMP. I did not find
> them in a recent CVS code (taken february or march).
> Sure I will check how the Path Tool stuff could be used in
> implementing the new tools. It just is not the vectors I want,
> but the powerful constraints framework. After installing the
> unirectangle geometry I don't want manipulate it at vector value
> level. Now unirectangle is simple stuff, but things gets more
> complicated if I need more complex tools. Some extra power
> would make things simpler. Read the papers for what I mean.

Please explain what a "unirectangle" is. A google search for this word
turned up exactly one mail from you - where you don't explain it.

After looking at sketchpad.pdf again I understand that the "constraints"
you are talking about seem to be relations between vector objects ("this
rectangle has the same height as the length of this line", "these
polygonal edges lie evenly spaced on a circle" etc. I believe "hints" in
fonts are a similiar idea.

While this certainly could be useful for technical/mathematical drawings
I don't see how this could be useful in an image manipulation context.
If implemented for a program primarily intended for vector stuff
(Skencil, Sodipodi) this might be very helpful, but in GIMP the primary
goal for now is to create pixel based images - which is notoriously bad
for above mentioned technical drawings.

So, unless you can bring up some compelling use cases for constraints in
an image manipulation context, I don't believe that they will be
implemented in the near future.

On the other and I am fully aware, that the vectors infrastructure in
the GIMP could be more widely integrated. It should be fairly easy to
implement rectanges and ellipses as vector objects. It definitely would
be cool to have them used for Crop and the selection tools, but we need
to iron out the usage scenario for adding/intersecting/substracting
selections in connection with the ability to manipulate the vector

I am willing to continue this discussion, but not if you continue to
call my stuff "kludge". And I don't want to read scientific publications
to guess what your ideas are. You apparently are deeply into that stuff,
so it should be fairly easy to you to bring up examples.


              [EMAIL PROTECTED]              http://simon.budig.de/
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to