On 5 Dec, Sven Neumann wrote:
> but you continue to state that it makes the code cleaner which it
> clearly doesn't.
I say using a type that represents the actual type of the value
closely is a feature and not a bug. What wrong about seing:
Hey, this value is supposed to be unsigned?
This is a
On 5 Dec, Sven Neumann wrote:
> it might be a good idea to keep the help pages in a format that can
> be read with standard browsers ?!
XML is a standard, if you have Mozilla for instance you can the the
transformations in realtime; that's not my point though. At the moment
it seems like overki
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 10:36:50PM +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The possibility to save the data indepently of the image format in a
> separate file a good idea but doesn't speak against using parasites
> for metadata.
In fact, it's trivial to implement another Load/Save-Plug-
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 12:07:56AM +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why not directly read XML in a plugin and apply some inline defined
> > styles to it? Just an idea...
>
> it might be a good idea to keep the help pages in a format that can
> be read with standard browsers ?!
I'm currently in end-of-semester crunch time, so I won't be working on
Gimp until after all of my semester projects are done.
The IRC addicts are probably already aware that my plans for after that
are:
* implement tool plug-ins with as little disturbance to the rest of Gimp
as is reasonable.
Hi,
Thomas RIBO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry to interrupt your (more important) conversation, but I still have
> problems with plugins.
> I really can't figure out why my plugin runs on and on and finally
> stopping some minutes later with a segmentation fault.
> I don't have infini
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:08:01 +0100 (CET)
--- paint-funcs.c.orig Thu Nov 29 14:17:47 2001
+++ paint-funcs.cTue Dec 4 21:53:49 2001
@@ -343,7 +343,8 @@
gdouble sigma2;
gdouble l;
gint temp;
- gint i, n;
+ guint
Hi all.
Sorry to interrupt your (more important) conversation, but I still have
problems with plugins.
I really can't figure out why my plugin runs on and on and finally
stopping some minutes later with a segmentation fault.
I don't have infinite loop (I trust, but maybe there are hidden on
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> But you also do read my mails, do you? And I said clearly that it might
> make a difference in larger functions not that it necessarily betters
> anything.
but you continue to state that it makes the code cleaner which it clearly
doesn't.
> Example? Ok, here y
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > We'd like to get rid of the hardcoded html help pages in the gimp
> > core. Instead we'd like to use more generic identifiers and have a
> > plug-in do the mapping to HTML files. This could be done by parsing an
> > XML index generated by the gimp-help build sy
On 4 Dec, Sven Neumann wrote:
>> Check the code if you don't believe it.
> Sorry, but that's exactly what I did before I posted the reply and I'm
> asking you to do that too. A simple benchmark prooves that the example
> you gave is wrong since the use of unsigned variables doesn't make any
>
On 4 Dec, Sven Neumann wrote:
> We'd like to get rid of the hardcoded html help pages in the gimp
> core. Instead we'd like to use more generic identifiers and have a
> plug-in do the mapping to HTML files. This could be done by parsing an
> XML index generated by the gimp-help build system.
W
On 4 Dec 2001, at 8:00, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> At 02:22 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> >- This may be controversial, but ImageMagick has a BSD-style license
> > that includes the "advertising clause".
>
> ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
> ImageMagick is
On 4 Dec 2001, at 13:09, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked
> > > > support for reading (
Hi,
David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That was my general idea. I can see that it has disadvantages (as
> you mention, back-compatibility and needing to do lots of stuff
> in the core are two). That parasites are supported in XCF is
> something of a red herring - as Sven's been at pains
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2001-12-04 at 2141.20 +0100):
> We need a Object-structure to be able to store and handle vector imagedata.
> I am not sure about how far we should go in this way, or where is the
> point to leave this stuff to other programs like sketch or sodipodi.
If there is a lib for all t
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:24:34AM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > I've applied exactly this scheme to tile_manager_get_tile_num () in
> > tile-manager.c and together with replacing the ongoing errorchecking
> > throughout the callees was able to save a whooping 480 bytes in object
> > size on PP
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 01:39:36PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm talking about nested function calls. If a function deep inside fails
> it should be handled as quickly as possible instead of propagating it
> through the code.
Uh, this is C, not Scheme. We don't throw exceptions. Calli
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:34:59AM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> the side effects of unsigned integers are not what people are used to
> think about when designing an algorithm. You are changing the
> mathematical base in an unneeded and hardly foreseeable way. Code that
> looks correct and used to
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:35:55AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> Don't you have to maintain backwards compatibility with your own
> user base? I certainly expect that you will change things to support new
> features (CMYK, etc.), but since old GIMP users have to be able to read
>
I am currently working on developing a single abstraction for
representing internal arrays of pixels and converting all code working
with such entities to use this abstraction. This includes, for
example, eliminating the use of TempBufs for storing pixel data (but
not for storing previews; that's
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:07:23PM +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Dave Neary wrote:
> > That has been thought of, and I don't think that one metadata
> > structure rules that out. In a way, it's just one bucket in which
> > we store the various pieces of information. Of course
Dave Neary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote about his current project.
I think I should do the same too, despite the fact that there is no
real code yet.
I am currently thinking about a new infrastructure in Gimp for vector
image data. Originated from frustration about the current path tool
(both - use
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Dave Neary wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> > Some time ago, I submitted two bug reports about this:
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56443 (EXIF and metadata)
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61499 (editi
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Nick Lamb wrote:
> Maybe I said this before, I can't remember, but "the standard" for trying
> to describe generic metadata is Dublin Core. So before burning too much
> midnight oil trying to organise metadata into neat categories at least
> type "Dublin Core" into a searc
At 12:16 PM 12/4/2001 -0600, Stephen J Baker wrote:
>(Although it *does* mean that ImageMagick had better not be using
>any GIMP code to help out it's decode/display of XCF's or it'll be
>in breach of GPL)
No GIMP code - at least not verbatim.
We don't use glib and we have our
Hi Rebecca,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2001-12-04 at 1737.58 +0100):
>
> Can't we all bask in the gimp love?
>
Not to split hairs, but isn't it gimplove with no space?
carol
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mail
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote:
> > > ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
> [...]
> > In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
> > (in Copyright.txt).
> >
> > (and I think it is very much BSD-lik
I have been messing with the AUTHORS, MAINTAINERS and PLUGIN_MAINTAINERS
files. I have been checking the information and making little xml tags
for them.
I started to use docbook style tags for them. I will limp along with
this "overkill" method of tagging things (as Syngin and Simon have
sugge
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Marc wrote:
> > ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
[...]
> In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
> (in Copyright.txt).
>
> (and I think it is very much BSD-like).
Right. And I was wrong in my previous comment: the
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 11:28:07AM -0500, Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >ImageMagick can read xcf files using delegates for quite some time,
> >btw. Of course, gimp must be installed for this to work.
>
> Right, you could have always done this - but it would have meant
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:17:06PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> agains 0 for example than against negativeness and this part also plays
> a role when returning 0 or non-null instead of a negative value.
Sorry, but before you continue with all this, ehrm, wrongness, would you
please first che
Okay. This has gone too far.
Both sides made mistakes. How about we all admit that? Mitch and Sven
should have talked to Daniel offlist first. Perhaps requiring patches
posted to gimp-dev is going too far.
Daniel: GIMP isn't ready for optimizations. You should have talked to
Kelly before chan
At 05:07 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
>ImageMagick can read xcf files using delegates for quite some time,
>btw. Of course, gimp must be installed for this to work.
Right, you could have always done this - but it would have meant
having GIMP and t
Continuing Dave Neary's thread.
My current work on gimp is very small. I'm reading the sources, looking
for typos, small bugs or obvious optimisations. i'm also use CVS gimp on
a regular basis (my art work isn't very important, so I don't care
loosing my datas here) in order to catch bugs.
Wh
>ImageMagick has NO license. The only thing we say is:
If ImageMagick does not have a license, it's not legal to use it in a lot
of countries.
In any case, my version of ImageMagick (older, 5.3.6) does have a license
(in Copyright.txt).
(and I think it is very much BSD-like).
--
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:06:56PM +0100, René <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There will be a new version of xcf eventually - so what? I'll use
> imagemagick today, and if no-one finds it worth the time implementing
> support for the new(er) version(s) I'm no worse off than if it hadn't been
Imag
Hi,
Jon Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, this is bothersome. I expect XCF to grow and change and improve but I
> also expect a certain amount of backwards compatability.
>
> I'm using Gimp in a production environment and I'm storing all of my
> "original artwork" images (anything with
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On 4 Dec, Sven Neumann wrote:
>
> > this is not true. Please stop spreading this nonsense about unsigned
> > integers being more performant than signed ones. Go and write yourself
> > a simple benchmark for the code you mentioned above and you will
> > notice th
> Appreciated. But it does sound like you'd also not be interested
> in my adding XCF writing support to ImageMagick then either??! (which is
> fine, I have other things to work on ;).
My two cents ... Personally, I am in favor of XCF support in ImageMagick.
Bill Sebok Compute
At 06:06 AM 12/4/2001 -0800, Seth Burgess wrote:
>I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF,
I am pretty sure that I do, but I'll hack up some files and try it
out. It already deal with the differences between the old and new headers.
>Now, I don't expect it to be easy
On 4 Dec, Sven Neumann wrote:
> this is not true. Please stop spreading this nonsense about unsigned
> integers being more performant than signed ones. Go and write yourself
> a simple benchmark for the code you mentioned above and you will
> notice that it doesn't make any difference at all.
H
On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 03:32:18PM +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
> Well, it is good that you posted that information to the list, because
> I also started working on that problem although I have a slightly
> different point of view. Instead of considering only the EXIF format,
> I decided to inves
On Tuesday, 4 Dec 2001, Seth Burgess wrote:
> I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, this will be
> exceptionally useful to users of ImageMagick. Its not at all an uncommon
> request on gimp-user or the gimp newsgroup. Batch conversion is still best
> handled via the commandl
Maybe I said this before, I can't remember, but "the standard" for trying
to describe generic metadata is Dublin Core. So before burning too much
midnight oil trying to organise metadata into neat categories at least
type "Dublin Core" into a search engine. Even if one decided that DC
itself was i
Hi Leonard,
I think if you make sure to check the version of the XCF, this will be
exceptionally useful to users of ImageMagick. Its not at all an uncommon
request on gimp-user or the gimp newsgroup. Batch conversion is still best
handled via the commandline, and having the ability to use gimp'
On 3 Dec, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> By how much?
Depends on the code and the compiler. And the range I'm talking about
is usually between 0 and 50% improvement in both code and size.
> If it can't be measured, it's probably not enough to be
> worthwhile.
Aside from the gains it's IMHO also cl
On 3 Dec, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
> Why? If a function is explicitly documented as returning an error,
> it's the caller's responsibility to handle it.
Right.
> The callee often doesn't know the high level context to handle it in a
> useful fashion.
I'm talking about nested function calls. I
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >For image web galleries, I'd suggest they use GIMP in batch mode
> >to convert to another format or to create the thumbnails directly.
> >That would probably have been a way to go for ImageMagick too.
>
> For whatever reason, most (a
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Dave Neary wrote:
> So I've been pretty quiet for several months now, and I recently
> nailed my flag to the mast, picked somethign from the TODO and
> started working on it. It's the Image metadata object item, which
> grew out of a desire to get the data out of the EXIF
At 02:04 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
>The idea to use XCF in an AbiWord document makes me shudder.
The AbiWord folks actually liked the idea! I don't know how many
people will actually use it - but it's nice to have and it continues to
improve the integration of "GNOME Off
Hi,
syngin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 22:14, Dave Neary wrote:
>
> I will be converting the entire GIMP-Help structure over to XML in the
> coming weeks. Because of this, I probably won't be adding new content to
> the existing 1.2 help system.
>
> We need to find a ha
At 02:22 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Raphael Quinet wrote:
- XCF is designed for internal use
by the Gimp while one is editing an
image but it is not supposed to be used for the "final"
images to be
distributed to other people. Other (standard) formats such
as PNG or
JPEG should be used if one want
Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
> > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
> > (http://www.imagemagick.org).
> >
> > Right now you'
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't you have to maintain backwards compatibility with your
> own user base? I certainly expect that you will change things to
> support new features (CMYK, etc.), but since old GIMP users have to be
> able to read those files, your
At 01:09 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
>Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be "a bad
> > idea and wasted time and effort"? Because XCF is changing? Because
> > GIMP users would use GIMP to convert image formats? Be
On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 22:14, Dave Neary wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Following on from the prof/Sven thread elsewhere, someone
> suggested that someone should start a thread to allow all the
> current developers to send a mail stating the stuff which they're
> currently working on, how they're doing,
Hi,
I'm currently working on two fronts:
- a framework to handle configuration files (gimprc, sessionrc ...)
- improving the Text Tool
I got a bit stuck with the latter, but I hope the next version of
Pango will be less buggy (working on a patch right now), so work
can continue. It will certa
On Tue, 04 Dec 2001, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
>> if you ask me, this is a bad idea and wasted time and effort, but I
>> guess it's too late now to discourage you from trying to read XCF.
>
> Why would adding support for XCF to ImageMagick be
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> >Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
> > > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagi
Continuing Bolsh's thread...
My current project is to proofread all the strings in the program. I am
trying to standardize things like proper use of "plug-in" so the user is
presented with a consistent use of language in the interface. I am also
trying to improve standardization of strings as m
At 12:06 PM 12/4/2001 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
>Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
> > reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
> > (http://www.imagemagick.org).
> >
>if you ask m
Hi all,
Following on from the prof/Sven thread elsewhere, someone
suggested that someone should start a thread to allow all the
current developers to send a mail stating the stuff which they're
currently working on, how they're doing, etc.
That someone (the second one, not the first) is me.
So
Hi,
Leonard Rosenthol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just thought I'd let you folks know that I just checked support for
> reading (writing will come later) XCF files to the ImageMagick library
> (http://www.imagemagick.org).
>
> Right now you'd need to get it via CVS, BUT it will be part of t
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> IMHO not because you're abusing the real value for errors and thus one
> variable for 2 purposes which is a bad idea and using signed integers is
> dragging down performance.
>
> It is also a bad idea to use signed integers for most loops for example;
> unsigned
65 matches
Mail list logo
