On Tuesday 20 December 2005 11:30, Chris Cannam wrote: > > You may be able to get around this by assuming that the area needing > repainting is always a superset of the area that has changed, and always > recreating all of that. This assumption is likely to be true, in our case, > but it's not certain because there's no guarantee that the paint event > associated with the region for a particular change will be the next paint > event following that change. I'm not sure whether that would matter in > practice, but it certainly breaks the logic.
I think you have the guarantee that when you update(rect), the rect will be among the ones in the QRegion of the next paint event, so it should work correctly. However you're right that it wouldn't be as efficient as what we have now, since we'd lose the info about whether the corresponding rect in the seg buffer actually needs to be redrawn, so it's still a stupid idea. -- Guillaume. http://www.telegraph-road.org ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
