On 17/08/06, David Gowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/17/06, Henk Boom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While presently vector layers are useful as a drawing tool, they would
> > approach the usefulness of normal layers if they could be moved. As far
> > understand, information about any necessary transformations can be
> > the form of a single transformation matrix (as a parasite?)
> The way I am currently thinking of implementing transformations is by
> just applying the transformations to the original path instead. It
> seems to me that this would be most intuitive in that it makes sure
> that the vector layer always corresponds to the position of the path
> it is based on.
Note also though, that implementing that scheme would mean transforming one
vector layer would effect any other layers using that path.. I don't know
how to resolve that.
That is true, and as a result the usefulness of having multiple vector
layers attached to a path would be limited to creating complex stroke
patterns. However, I feel the confusion caused by having vector layers
that do not line up with their paths would be too much.
I do realize how independently movable layers would be useful. For
example, one could have one path representing a symbol, and show
multiple vector layers in different positions around the image
rendering that symbol. This would let you easily modify the symbol in
one place and have the changes be reflected everywhere. This level of
functionality is getting pretty high level though, (and even in
dedicated vector programs like inkscape there are a couple of issues
with these "clones") and it is currently a much higher priority to get
vector layers fully working and integrated into the gimp.
Thank you again for your continued input,
Gimp-developer mailing list