On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 04:32:27PM +0100, Raphael Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> familiar with this code could help me a bit or add some documentation
> to the undo code, then I will attempt to fix gimp_undo_push_group_start.

I can understand this, but how about just _replacing_ these two pdb functions
by functions that do the equivalent of what you are doing?

> feature freeze into account.

I delcare these are bug-fixes ;)

> everything in the current image, and so on.  I prefer to let each
> script do exactly what it wants to do, instead of copying the whole
> image every time.

There are serious drawbacks to this way of doing it that IMHO outweight
the memory-savings:

- third-party-scripts will not profit form this.
- only you will understand how it's done
- it requires a relatively complicated source change (rather than just
  a renamed function).

> On the other hand, wrapping this into two PDB calls would indeed look
> much cleaner (even if the internals are still ugly) and it would be
> easier to implement this in a better way later.

Would it be possible to mimic the semantics of the undo_group-functions?
Maybe these could just be replaced (perfect). But I would really
prefer two pdb calls, if that is possible (maybe similar to the export

> So... errr...  I don't know what to do.  Does anybody have strong
> preferences

very strong ;) how large is the speed/memory penalty?

> Or a third one (fixing gimp_undo_push_group_start)?

I think doing this "right" before 1.2 is faaar to complicated.

      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |

Reply via email to