On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 02:00:28PM +, Austin Donnelly wrote:
On , 9 Feb 2001, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
Therefore I propose to completely rewrite everything that can be
considered a "PaintObject" into a generic provider form, where the
paintcore for each operation asks the provider
On , 9 Feb 2001, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
Therefore I propose to completely rewrite everything that can be
considered a "PaintObject" into a generic provider form, where the
paintcore for each operation asks the provider for it's data.
It would be nice to be able to use loadable modules to
Hi all,
This mail comes from some discussions I had with Sven around the time
just before 1.2.0, the recent discussion about textures and natural
painting and a chat on IRC yesterday with Sven.
He told me to write down what I said there and post it to the mailing
list as a RFC --- I assume,
On 09 Feb 2001 11:32:16 +0100, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
Hi all,
This mail comes from some discussions I had with Sven around the time
just before 1.2.0, the recent discussion about textures and natural
painting and a chat on IRC yesterday with Sven.
[ SNIP ]
As David already pointed
Tuomas "\"spectrolite\"" Kuosmanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 09 Feb 2001 11:32:16 +0100, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
Hi all,
This mail comes from some discussions I had with Sven around the time
just before 1.2.0, the recent discussion about textures and natural
painting and a
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 02:28:57PM +0100, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
Tuomas "\"spectrolite\"" Kuosmanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 09 Feb 2001 11:32:16 +0100, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
Hi all,
This mail comes from some discussions I had with Sven around the time
just before
On 9 Feb 2001, Jens Lautenbacher wrote:
Here the question naturally arises: what kind of functions should be
possible? Only transformations? Only some set of functions that are
predefined in the core? Or could there be some possibility to handle
user provided functions? How would these (if
