I forgot to mention: things seem to be more or less OK as long as the zoom factor is of the form n/1280 for some integer n. Here 1280 is 5*PIXEL (the size of a pixel at the default hard shrinking factor 5). Maybe we should just always work with zoom factors of the above form...
--Joris On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 12:16:31PM +0100, Joris van der Hoeven wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 11:09:31PM +0100, Joris van der Hoeven wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 04:18:54PM +0100, Joris van der Hoeven wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 12:56:52PM +0100, Joris van der Hoeven wrote: > > > > P.S.: I am also working on the support of non integer shrinking factors > > > > at the moment, > > > > which will allow us to tackle the fully general case, if you manage to > > > > get the above > > > > idea working. > > > > > > I managed to get this working. > > > > There is still a small problem with the Qt version: > > invalidation of regions does not always work with zooming factors > 1. > > Although things are much worse under Qt, there are actually some artefacts too > under X11, especially when scrolling. I slightly improved the situation > (see my recent commits in Plugin/X11), but I do not manage to get everything > correct; arbitrary non integer shrinking factors remain quite problematic; > some rendering assumptions seem to be subtelly broken. > > In any case: Max and Miguel, please investigate what can be done for > the Qt version. Is there anything I can do in order to improve things? > > Best, --Joris > > _______________________________________________ > Texmacs-dev mailing list > Texmacs-dev@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev