Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: caching considerations in gegl

2003-03-12 Thread Ernst Lippe
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:08:43 -0800 Daniel Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Necas (Yeti) wrote: > > But then I, as a user, don't care about alpha, and what > > I really care about is transparency. So everything what was > > said can be repeated, only s/alpha/transparency/. My need > > for

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: caching considerations in gegl

2003-03-11 Thread Daniel Rogers
David Necas (Yeti) wrote: OK, I could use alpha in a wrong sense, it's a matter of definition, and let's agree on yours (though I wonder how's called the object alpha==0 pixels are part of, because I can draw on them, unlike pixels outside layer boundaries, so they exist and are part of something).

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: caching considerations in gegl

2003-03-11 Thread pippin
* Adam D. Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030311 23:38]: > Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: > >Would just antierase users be happy with layers masks? This feature is > >ignored a lot, and I think it does the same, you hide and unhide areas > >as you want, keeping the colour info. If yes, get r

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: caching considerations in gegl

2003-03-11 Thread David Necas (Yeti)
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:53:45PM -0800, Daniel Rogers wrote: > > Although back on the topic of anti-erase, I think that the only way to > do anti-erase correctly is with another layer. Once alpha goes to zero, > the pixel no larger part of the sampled image. OK, I could use alpha in a wrong

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: caching considerations in gegl

2003-03-11 Thread Daniel Rogers
David Necas (Yeti) wrote: If you want to implement anti-erase as a layer mask, then for antierase to be available, this layer mask (not shown to user) has to be present all the time (if not, the information needed for anti-erase would be lost). But how this situation differs from separate alpha cha

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: caching considerations in gegl

2003-03-11 Thread David Necas (Yeti)
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:33:14PM -0800, Daniel Rogers wrote: > > Or, as I suggested in an earlier email, but I don't think was stated > very clearly, implement anti-erase as a layer mask (whether or not the > user can actually see the extra layer). If you want to implement anti-erase as a lay

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: caching considerations in gegl

2003-03-11 Thread Adam D. Moss
Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: Would just antierase users be happy with layers masks? This feature is ignored a lot, and I think it does the same, you hide and unhide areas as you want, keeping the colour info. If yes, get rid of antierase. One weak reservation I have (I mention it in

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: caching considerations in gegl

2003-03-11 Thread Daniel Rogers
Would just antierase users be happy with layers masks? This feature is ignored a lot, and I think it does the same, you hide and unhide areas as you want, keeping the colour info. If yes, get rid of antierase. GSR Or, as I suggested in an earlier email, but I don't think was stated very clearly