Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick

2001-12-16 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi, Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable > > interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF > > which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support > > into various other apps will m

Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick

2001-12-16 Thread Nick Lamb
On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 02:58:20PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: > my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable > interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF > which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support > into various other apps wi

Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick

2001-12-16 Thread Branko Collin
On 16 Dec 2001, at 14:58, Sven Neumann wrote: > "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I am not trying to advocate XCF as a format for the exchange of > > images, but I do think that if for instance the authors of > > ImageMagick want to support it, they may have a good reason for > >

Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick

2001-12-16 Thread Austin Donnelly
On , 16 Dec 2001, Sven Neumann wrote: > my whole point was that we should try to come up with a reasonable > interchange format for multi-layered images instead of using XCF > which isn't really well-suited for this task. Introducing XCF support > into various other apps will make that even more

Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick

2001-12-16 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi, "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Today I saw another reason for XCF to be taken more seriously as an > interchange format by the GIMP developers (or at least to document > the format and its effects better). > > In rec.photo.digital somebody wrote in the thread 'IMatch catalo

Re: [Gimp-developer] XCF support added to ImageMagick

2001-12-16 Thread Branko Collin
On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote: > Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: > > >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just > > > > checked support for reading

[Gimp-developer] Unsigned vs. signed (forward from gcc-devel)

2001-12-16 Thread degger
Hija, seems I'm not the only one in favour of unsigned arithmetics where possible. -- Forwarded message -- From: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Optimizations on long long multiply/divide on PowerPC32 don't work Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 10:52:07 -0800 (PST)