On Saturday 16 May 2009 00:09:45 Alchemie foto\grafiche wrote:
Is not simple and intuitive create, or move, the selection where
you want your object be paste ?
I just found out -- maybe I put my wish into reverse. Instead of
changing current behaviour maybe adding function:
a) sticky dragging
Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
So my workflow would be like this (option b):
* copy
* paste
* confirm
* paste
* ctrl+shift+h (this will move the block from its initial position
to the position of the mouse)
ctrl+shift+h is of course just an example. Sticky dragging is similar,
it glues the
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 11:17 -0700, Akkana Peck wrote:
I've found the paste centers behavior quite useful, and have
recommended it to lots of other people as a quick way to center
a layer (which used to be a FAQ, though less so now that the
align tool exists).
We could add Center Layer
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 20:48 +0200, Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
On Thursday 14 May 2009 20:17:43 Akkana Peck wrote:
I've found the paste centers behavior quite useful,
It is predictable and more useful than random placement for sure. But
with hires monitor I would still like some kind
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 13:21 -0400, Liam R E Quin wrote:
When there is no selection, and you paste, the paste typically ends
up 3,926,201 screens above where you are working (for me at least).
Not sure what version of GIMP you are using. But the current code has
the following logic:
If
On Friday 15 May 2009 20:40:21 Sven Neumann wrote:
GIMP doesn't place the pasted content randomly. What makes you
think so?
Because I don't see any relevance in second paste to what I do (and
where I do) and I see no relevance between first paste and the second
one. And it should be.
I
On Friday 15 May 2009 21:03:27 Sven Neumann wrote:
Not sure what version of GIMP you are using. But the current code
has the following logic:
If there is a selection, paste to the center of the selection
boundary.
If there is no selection, paste to the center of the viewport
unless that
When you paste a second time, the first paste should still be visible
and selected(?) and the floating selection is the current drawable,
and thus the second paste end up on top of it (allowing for difference
in paste sizes), right? Can you elaborate on the precise order of
operations that
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 21:16 +0200, Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
GIMP doesn't place the pasted content randomly. What makes you
think so?
Because I don't see any relevance in second paste to what I do (and
where I do) and I see no relevance between first paste and the second
one. And
On Friday 15 May 2009 21:25:54 Sven Neumann wrote:
I explained the currently implemented logic in another mail. It is
by far not random. Did you even try a recent development snapshot
before you posted your wishes here?
I tried it for a test and it is centered indeed :-) However since I
move
On Friday 15 May 2009 21:23:57 Sparr wrote:
When you paste a second time, the first paste should still be
visible and selected(?) and the floating selection is the current
drawable, and thus the second paste end up on top of it (allowing
for difference in paste sizes), right? Can you
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 21:42 +0200, Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
On Friday 15 May 2009 21:23:57 Sparr wrote:
When you paste a second time, the first paste should still be
visible and selected(?) and the floating selection is the current
drawable, and thus the second paste end up on top
On Friday 15 May 2009 21:52:01 Sven Neumann wrote:
And I refuse to discuss such changes with someone who
completely disrespects this effort and calls the placement random.
Surely it is your call, for me it is odd though that using
word random is taken as offense and being just a user of gimp
Logic may be even changed, but before change something is better understand how
it works
Paste is centered at the center of the selection (if any)
Is not simple and intuitive create, or move, the selection where you want your
object be paste ?
How i would able to guess a relation with the
Hi,
In GIMP 2.6.2 when pasting several references are taken into
account -- and that is useful.
But if there is no reference (no previously selected region for
example) it would be useful to paste the block initially at mouse
cursor position (counting left, upper corner of the rectangle which
Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
Hi,
But if there is no reference (no previously selected region for
example) it would be useful to paste the block initially at mouse
cursor position (counting left, upper corner of the rectangle which
boundaries of the block make, as the base point).
I
On Thursday 14 May 2009 18:43:01 Martin Nordholts wrote:
Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
Hi,
But if there is no reference (no previously selected region for
example) it would be useful to paste the block initially at mouse
cursor position
I don't think it is a good idea to use the cursor
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 18:43 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
[...]
I don't think it is a good idea to use the cursor as the insertion point
since this is both very uncommon and not very practical, the mouse
cursor is too volatile for this. More reasonable is to use the selection
as the
Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
So, I opt for some kind of predictability vs. randomness. And in such
case, mouse cursor position is a good reference.
I don't think the cursor is ever a good insertion point. It is better
than a random insertion point, yes, but so what? It's still not a good
On Thursday 14 May 2009 19:26:41 Martin Nordholts wrote:
It is
better than a random insertion point, yes, but so what?
I am puzzled -- if it is better (and I agree) we should use it. Is
there any reason to keep worse UI?
I think progress means search for better solutions and use them. Here
Liam R E Quin writes:
5) zoom in on the place where you want to work, a step
at a time, gradually moving the floating selection
6) when you get to 50% or 100% so you can work, try to remember
why you wanted whatever you pasted.
Why you think that's a smoother workflow than
1) paste
21 matches
Mail list logo
