| |
| |
On 2/26/21 9:42 AM Manolo wrote:
I'm completely lost after all these propositions.
1) Functions fl_push_matrix()/fl_pop_matrix() belong to the "Drawing
complex shapes" API
so they affect only that part of the drawing API. In contrast, the
scaling factor affects all
drawing functions. I don't see how a transient change of the scaling factor
could be related to the transformation matrix of the "complex shapes" API.
I agree, using the transformation would be bad and confusing (IMHO).
I believe we might need a warning in the docs that the transformation
matrix would need to be reset by the user if it's unity because of
different coordinate systems before and after resetting the scaling
factor. Otherwise the result of drawing complex shapes might be undefined.
2) Proposal for this function
float fl_set_scale(float s);
involves two scaling factor values, the current one, and the new one,
whereas in what has been programmed, the new value is always 1.
I don't see how changing the scaling factor to another
value makes sense. The goal is to allow working at the single
pixel level. And only one value of the scaling factor is
compatible with that, value 1.f.
Yes, you're right. I withdraw this proposal. The reason for using the
parameter "float s" was because "set_scale" should "set something". It
looked weird without an argument. Withdrawn.
My vote is now for Ian's
fl_override_scale() paired with fl_restore_scale()
followed by Greg's
fl_unscale() / fl_rescale()
or (yet another proposal)
fl_unset_scale() / fl_restore_scale()
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "fltk.general" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fltkgeneral+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fltkgeneral/be8789fe-fa4a-263f-76ea-b439e038991a%40online.de.
[ Direct Link to Message ] | |
|
| |
