You're right that there aren't vector graphics layers, per se. However
there are path layers, which can be treated like vector although they
themselves don't have fill or stroke colors or patterns - if you change a
path and you want to change the stroke or whatever, you have to do it
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Jason Cipriani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Martin Nordholts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > There are a couple of reaons, some of them partly overlap:
> > * It is a big UI task to define exactly how drawing tools should work
> > and how they should interact with existing tools and workflows in a
> > way.
> Hypothetically speaking, if somebody were to sit down and try to work
> on this in the far, far future, it seems like there would only be two
> choices, both of them fairly straightforward (I'm new to gimp but
> AFAICT there's no vector-graphics layers so both choices end up with
> rasterized shapes).
> 1) It interacts with everything the same way the paint brush and
> pencil do. Draw squares, circles, etc., directly on to current layer.
> UI controls are similar to other paint programs... dragging boxes,
> 2) It behaves the same way a text layer does. Draw squares, circles,
> etc. to new "primitive shape layer" (or whatever), and they can be
> edited, scaled, rotated, whatever afterwards (this gives similar
> functionality to vector-based squares and circles and things).
> Are both of those choices satisfactory? They seem simple and flow well
> with the existing GUI, unless there is something that I'm overlooking.
> I ask because if I ever happened to meet the aforementioned
> hypothetical person who may work on this feature in the distant
> future, I'd like to give them some useful design hints.
> Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user mailing list