On 3 Feb 2000, Lars Clausen wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, James Henstridge wrote:
> >
> >> Scaling groups should not be too difficult to implement. I haven't
> >> looked closely, but it probably just isn't implemented yet.
> >
> > Well, it's not exactly easy. I opted to not implement it, because its
> > actually pretty hard. All objects don't scale affinely/lineary, i.e. UML
> > classes and text. Connections between objects makes it even harder.
>
> Are there any objects that allow scaling, but which do not scale linearly?
> Text and classes don't scale at all, so if any such were included, the
> group might just not scale, but I haven't seen any that do scale in strange
> ways. And it should be possible to scale poly-connections along with the
> objects, even though they temselves have no support for it.
That depends a bit on you definition of scale. Does an orthogonal
connector scale with an arrow in one end scale lineary? It could, if you
make sure you correctly move all segments, change line-width and arrow
size. But this is not the kind of scaling you get my moving one handle.
And objects can really scale in arbitrary complex ways. Look for instance
on the "activity/data box" in the SADT sheet. It is basically linear until
you make it smaller than the contained text (but it seems the
connection-points are changed anyway, bug?).
/ Alex
