[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-19 at 1524.44 +0100):
> [technical discussion  :)]
> I think I already explained why I prefer the set of ratios based on
> the idea of "homogenous zooming". So the rest of this Mail focuses 
> on the technical issues of your patch.

The last patch I sent does homogenous zooming, has no more (known)
floating issues (I am not gonna bet about floats, what is more, not
gonna bet about Gimp either, I saw some warnings about aliasing in
other parts, and I already had enough with C guts) and is small, it
just fits in place with the old code instead of more deep changes.
[... code]
> As you can see it compares floats with <= and >= and so avoids
> tests for real equalness. The little "jump" done by multiplying by
> 1.1 (which is a bit arbitrary chosen, but should be smaller than the
> factors between the presets) makes it even more robust IMHO.

So in the end both do a list of presets. Main difference is that mine
is simetrical (that can be good or bad) and uses a typical search
system. BTW, the CLAMP should be 255 or 256?
> I hope you can accept this as a technical criticism of your patch, it
> might solve your floating point problems with a different approach.
> It also should work with a different set of presets.

Problems solved... what do you mean with different set? Both can be
adjusted, that was one of the differences from my first to second
version, the table changed.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to