Hi,
"Joao S. O. Bueno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, 0.75 is sometimes boring, when the whole image would fit in,
> say, 90% of the screen, and it shows up zoomed out.
>
> regarding your specific question, it would not be nice if the GIMP
> openned an image in a zoom factor that once
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 12:27, Simon Budig wrote:
> Joao S. O. Bueno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I've tried Simons Patch, and it seemed very nice for me.
> > Of course I am innoi position to word out what should and should
> > not be commited, but from a user point of view, it is nice.
>
>
Simon Budig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> a) open the image as big as possible (zoom-to-fit to a window about
>0.75 * screen dimensions), this roughly is the behavior of current
>CVS.
>
> b) open the image in the next smaller zoom preset (which would result
>in image windows smaller tha
Joao S. O. Bueno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I've tried Simons Patch, and it seemed very nice for me.
> Of course I am innoi position to word out what should and should not
> be commited, but from a user point of view, it is nice.
There are two things I'd like to know.
As you know Gimp avoids
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:51:17PM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:24:15AM -0800, Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, the bulk of the code in gimp that causes warnings is stuff like:
>
> > void foo (void **p);
> >
> > void bar (void)
> > {
> > int *i;
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:24:15AM -0800, Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, the bulk of the code in gimp that causes warnings is stuff like:
> void foo (void **p);
>
> void bar (void)
> {
> int *i;
> foo ((void **) &i);
> }
>
> While it does break the letter of the law wrt alia
I've tried Simons Patch, and it seemed very nice for me.
Of course I am innoi position to word out what should and should not
be commited, but from a user point of view, it is nice.
Unfortunately I could not check GSR's patch because of compiling
issues.
Regards,
JS
-><-
On
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:24:15AM -0800, Manish Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 04:13:19AM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:57AM +0100, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > other parts, and I already had enough with C guts) and is small, it
> > > >
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 04:13:19AM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:57AM +0100, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > other parts, and I already had enough with C guts) and is small, it
> > > just fits in place with the old code instead of more deep changes.
>
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:57AM +0100, Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > other parts, and I already had enough with C guts) and is small, it
> > just fits in place with the old code instead of more deep changes.
>
> True. (These "break strict aliasing rules" warnings however are harmle
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:57AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> [restricting this to gimp-devel, since this is purely technical stuff]
>
> GSR - FR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-19 at 1524.44 +0100):
> > > [technical discussion :)]
> > > I think I already explained why
[restricting this to gimp-devel, since this is purely technical stuff]
GSR - FR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-19 at 1524.44 +0100):
> > [technical discussion :)]
> > I think I already explained why I prefer the set of ratios based on
> > the idea of "homogenous zooming".
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-19 at 1524.44 +0100):
> [technical discussion :)]
> I think I already explained why I prefer the set of ratios based on
> the idea of "homogenous zooming". So the rest of this Mail focuses
> on the technical issues of your patch.
The last patch I sent does homogenous z
13 matches
Mail list logo
