On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 14:59, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> The outlines shown when placing a stamp doesn't work as well as
> before (both for unscaled and scaled stamps).
I've noticed.
Rather than fixing it, I think the outline code should
be redone. As noted by a #define option, the current
code
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> I'm not sure I like this. If we have several stamps (e.g. the
>> fruit stamps) they should scale by the *same* amount, not by
>> an integer ratio. If I have understood things correctly, your
>> code means that an apple may look
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 01:14, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > I split the difference. So if the object is 100x100 on a
> > 500x300 canvas, it'll ideally be 141x141 on a 1000x600
> > canvas. The code will find the nearest integer ratio to
> > this, curren
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I support that, but it goes the other way. While I would
> have done the direction you chose, our opinions are not
> terribly important. We know about software development.
>
> My wife, mostly a non-programmer, would use 2.5 for
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 20:12, Bill Kendrick wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 05:11:03PM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > > Unless someone objects, I'll add a feature request for this to the
> > > SF tracker.
> >
> > It seems complicated. :-(
>
> On the contrary. I like the idea of a slider over t
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 01:14:28PM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> In the *.dat file, you put a line like one of these:
>
Albert, can you please add some documentation on this new feature
inside "docs/html/README.html"?
(Or, if you'd rather not, just give me a good summary, and I can stick
it in
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 05:11:03PM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > Unless someone objects, I'll add a feature request for this to the
> > SF tracker.
>
> It seems complicated. :-(
On the contrary. I like the idea of a slider over the "Grow"/"Shrink"
(up-arrow/down-arrow) buttons we have now.
T
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 16:02, Karl Ove Hufthammer wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > (considering a 640x480 display)
> >
> > 200% makes the stamp twice as wide
> > 2 means that the stamp file is 2x what it should be
> > 2/1 ? (didn't ask, but
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> (considering a 640x480 display)
>
> 200% makes the stamp twice as wide
> 2 means that the stamp file is 2x what it should be
> 2/1 ? (didn't ask, but same as above would make sense)
> 2:1 ? (didn't ask)
Perhaps just us
In the *.dat file, you put a line like one of these:
scale 2
scale = 2
scale=2
scale 2.71
scale 2:3
scale=5/12
scale 5 / 12
scale 80%
Before this gets out into the wild, scale factor
direction needs to be set in stone. According to
a 3rd-party (my wife), this is most intuitive:
(considering a 64
10 matches
Mail list logo
