On Jul 14, 2012, at 8:59 PM, Chris Foster wrote:
> (Is there any good reason to support the trivial compositing ops
> which return just A,B or an empty image? I can't think of one.)
No, I can't think or any reason to support the trivial compositing ops, nor to
support ops that are just reversals of the A,B ordering. For example, just
"over", *NOT* src_over and dst_over, or any nonsense like that.
> Yeah, if we were using C++11 we could use an "enum class" to avoid
> leaking the names into the surrounding scope:
>
> enum class Blend { Normal, Multiply, Screen, ... };
Yep, that would be my first choice, but lots of people depend on OIIO and do
not have C++11 compliant compilers.
But note that when that day comes, we can change the
namespace Blend { enum Op { ... }; }
to
enum class Blend { ... };
and it won't even chance client app source code! Either way just looks like
"Blend::Screen".
--
Larry Gritz
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Oiio-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openimageio.org/listinfo.cgi/oiio-dev-openimageio.org
