On 9/28/06, Michael Natterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 21:48 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
> On 9/28/06, saulgoode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>         Regarding the current user interface (in CVS), I fail to see
>         any logic
>         in having the selection tools possessing the ability to move
>         selection
>         contents, it is much simpler and more intuitive if they limit
>         themselves
>         to selecting regions and not engage in modifying drawables.
> I agree completely.

In Current CVS, you have to press alt+shift or alt+control to actually
move the pixels with a selection tool. Nobody does that accidentially,
and it's a powerful tool for power users. I see no reason to remove it.

That is definitely a great feature, and I understand why it can't be assigned to a single key.  I think it still needs to be made more accessible (personally I'd rate it as more important than being able to intersect the selection with the old selection; however it's less obvious than the intersect function)
Looks like I've comprehensively misunderstood what saulgoode was trying to say. -- Sorry, saulgoode.

> Either you are misunderstanding what is actually there, or your build
> is messed up.
> Try rebuilding from scratch, and then checking your assertion above.

Well, should we simply hide these options when they make no sense?
It's IMHO better to change the text to something that's actually
happening and make them insensitive. That's the whole reasoning
behind that.

What I meant here is that the only circumstances in which the 'affect selection' option of the Move tool is greyed out is when there is no image open, and that there is exactly one instance of it, not two.
Oh, wait.. I see what saulgoode meant now. I think that it could be improved (the second radio option could be N/A and selecting 'affect selection' would force the radio selection to the first option (and set the radio group insensitive, as before))

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to