Greetings!
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2000, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [quoting Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > > I would be very unhappy if changing the layer opacity from 100% to 50%
> > > > would eat up a dozen or more undo-steps since each value_changed signal
> > > > from t
Hi,
> Here is my proposal: save and restore all layer attributes (opacity,
> mode, keep trans, visibility) together with any operation that is
> currently put on the undo stack.
>
> This means that if you do anything that starts an undo step
> (e.g. painting in the image), the current attributes
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [quoting Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > I would be very unhappy if changing the layer opacity from 100% to 50%
> > > would eat up a dozen or more undo-steps since each value_changed signal
> > > from the slider triggers an
Tom Rathborne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:25:49PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > I still believe that it is a bad idea to waste undo steps for
> > operations that don't save any shadow tiles.
>
> I agree. If I'm on a machine with limited resources and have the GIMP
> s
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:25:49PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> I still believe that it is a bad idea to waste undo steps for
> operations that don't save any shadow tiles.
I agree. If I'm on a machine with limited resources and have the GIMP
set up for only, say, 8 levels of undo, I don't want t
Hi,
> > I would be very unhappy if changing the layer opacity from 100% to 50%
> > would eat up a dozen or more undo-steps since each value_changed signal
> > from the slider triggers an undo which causes another undo-step fall
> > off the end of the undo queue.
>
> Oh, sure - that's clearly a
On Wednesday, 7 Jun 2000, Sven Neumann wrote:
> I would be very unhappy if changing the layer opacity from 100% to 50%
> would eat up a dozen or more undo-steps since each value_changed signal
> from the slider triggers an undo which causes another undo-step fall
> off the end of the undo queue.
Hi,
> Anyone else want to comment at this stage? As a user, would _you_ get
> confused when you hit undo and all that changes is (eg) the layer
> opacity?
I would be very unhappy if changing the layer opacity from 100% to 50%
would eat up a dozen or more undo-steps since each value_changed sign
On Tuesday, 6 Jun 2000, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> I re-discovered an old problem with these scripts: some operations on
> the layers are not recorded on the undo stack. If I am not mistaken,
> these operations are:
> - toggling the visibility of a layer,
> - toggling its "preserve trans." flag,
>
