On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Kevin Brosius wrote:
> Cool idea. Is there a problem with shape wipe that prevented you from
> using a new shape wipe mask for vertical wipes?
The main issue with shape wipe is simply that it's less convenient - I was
in fact using it before I made these changes, but that mean
On 2007-06-03 19:27, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> On Sunday 03 June 2007 20:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Okay, here is a patch implementing my improvements to wipe. If this isn't
> > the best way to submit patches, let me know what would be.
> >
> > I'm mimicked the existing code's semantics in that
On Sunday 03 June 2007 20:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Okay, here is a patch implementing my improvements to wipe. If this isn't
> the best way to submit patches, let me know what would be.
>
> I'm mimicked the existing code's semantics in that a wipe with a direction
> of "up" means a wipe from
Okay, here is a patch implementing my improvements to wipe. If this isn't
the best way to submit patches, let me know what would be.
I'm mimicked the existing code's semantics in that a wipe with a direction
of "up" means a wipe from the top of the screen down to the bottom. That
seems counterin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I decided to enhance the wipe plugin to do vertical as well as horizonal
> wipes, and I've a few questions and issues about this code:
>
> - I really don't like the indenting style of the existing code. Do I have
> to follow it, or can I switch to something more readabl
I decided to enhance the wipe plugin to do vertical as well as horizonal
wipes, and I've a few questions and issues about this code:
- I really don't like the indenting style of the existing code. Do I have
to follow it, or can I switch to something more readable for the parts I
write?
- We have
