Re: Graphics & Qt
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 04:17:35PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > If you feel like re-working the code, go ahead. I have no strong opinions > either way. Hmm, you won't be tricked into doing my dirty work, will you ? :) john -- "Be sure of this, O young ambition, all mortal greatness is but disease." - Hermann Melville
Re: Graphics & Qt
On Monday 15 July 2002 4:35 pm, John Levon wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 09:46:46AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > > > Another thing: how hard would it be to try and load an image via the > > > toolkit converter /before/ doing any conversion stuff, to see if it > > > succeeds ? Only if it fails would it then need to try converting an > > > image > > > > Why would you want to do that? The loader tells us what formats it can > > load directly. Why not trust it? > > Because it is less trustworthy than actually doing it. I never like > extension-as-filetype except as fallback, and I can be sure our > content-type guessing is not as good as Qt's. It would also solve the > problem with not being able to load gifs because lyx won't recognise > Qt's ability (for whatever bug that is ...) > > I think it is more elegant to delegate to our superiors in this regard > first. > > regards > john If you feel like re-working the code, go ahead. I have no strong opinions either way. Angus
Re: Graphics & Qt
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 09:46:46AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > Why would you want to do that? The loader tells us what formats it can load > directly. Why not trust it? Also, the formats list is not fine-grained enough. What if Qt can't load some weird pnm format, but lyx could convert it ? Without my suggestion, we will just not show the figure, with, we will convert it to a loadable format. So it's more robust too john -- "Be sure of this, O young ambition, all mortal greatness is but disease." - Hermann Melville
Re: Graphics & Qt
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 09:46:46AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > > Another thing: how hard would it be to try and load an image via the > > toolkit converter /before/ doing any conversion stuff, to see if it > > succeeds ? Only if it fails would it then need to try converting an > > image > > Why would you want to do that? The loader tells us what formats it can load > directly. Why not trust it? Because it is less trustworthy than actually doing it. I never like extension-as-filetype except as fallback, and I can be sure our content-type guessing is not as good as Qt's. It would also solve the problem with not being able to load gifs because lyx won't recognise Qt's ability (for whatever bug that is ...) I think it is more elegant to delegate to our superiors in this regard first. regards john -- "Be sure of this, O young ambition, all mortal greatness is but disease." - Hermann Melville
Re: Graphics & Qt
On Friday 12 July 2002 5:07 pm, John Levon wrote: > Another thing: how hard would it be to try and load an image via the > toolkit converter /before/ doing any conversion stuff, to see if it > succeeds ? Only if it fails would it then need to try converting an > image Why would you want to do that? The loader tells us what formats it can load directly. Why not trust it? Angus
Re: Graphics & Qt
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 08:26:39AM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> Why not:
> class grfx::Pixmap {
> };
>
> class grfx::Image {
> public:
> grfx::Pixmap & getPixmap();
> };
>
> where grfx::Pixmap is an abstract base class. Daughter classes would contain
> the Pixmap proper (X) or QPixmap?
This still requires a static_downcast though, does it not ?
> > Also, is boost::bind() idempotent ? lyx_gui::init_graphics() gets
> > called a lot
>
> It shouldn't. Once is enough:
I was confused with another method called init_graphics()
Another thing: how hard would it be to try and load an image via the
toolkit converter /before/ doing any conversion stuff, to see if it
succeeds ? Only if it fails would it then need to try converting an
image
regards
john
--
"I hope you will find the courage to keep on living
despite the existence of this feature."
- Richard Stallman
Re: Graphics & Qt
On Friday 12 July 2002 1:21 am, John Levon wrote:
> Angus what should we do about getPixmap() of Image class ?
>
> Can't xforms code do the standard static_cast to xformsImage
> so Image doesn't need to ahve getPixmap() ? A bit ugly ...
I didn't try and think about an elegant solution at the time.
Why not:
class grfx::Pixmap {
};
class grfx::Image {
public:
grfx::Pixmap & getPixmap();
};
where grfx::Pixmap is an abstract base class. Daughter classes would contain
the Pixmap proper (X) or QPixmap?
I have no real ideas to be honest.
> Also, is boost::bind() idempotent ? lyx_gui::init_graphics() gets
> called a lot
It shouldn't. Once is enough:
Cache & Cache::get()
{
static bool start = true;
if (start) {
start = false;
lyx_gui::init_graphics();
}
// Now return the cache
static Cache singleton;
return singleton;
}
Maybe you could track that down?
Angus
Graphics & Qt
Angus what should we do about getPixmap() of Image class ? Can't xforms code do the standard static_cast to xformsImage so Image doesn't need to ahve getPixmap() ? A bit ugly ... Also, is boost::bind() idempotent ? lyx_gui::init_graphics() gets called a lot regards john -- "I hope you will find the courage to keep on living despite the existence of this feature." - Richard Stallman
