Re: 0.92-pre1

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Lars Clausen wrote:

> > The Dynamic grid works well and is a significant improvement, but it
> > makes Snap to Grid a bit more confusing.
>
> Any idea for how Snap to Grid could be less confusing with Dynamic Grid?

not entirely sure but i think that every Nth (fourth, fifth?) line is
slightly darker/wider and when I zoom in to the next level of the dynamic
grid the slightly darker line has 'moved' (or disappeared entirely leaving
my line snapped to an invisible point).

i think there is some need for the heavier major lines to match through
the zoom levels.
I doubt I am making this very clear, I'll try and explain later with
screenshots.

> > If you use the Document Menubar the Input Methods menu is blank (i
> > mentioned this before but neglected to file a bug report).
> >
> > I tried switching Input Methods to Amharic but it failed
> > (dia.exe:4294205835): Gtk-WARNING **: Loading IM context type 'am_et'
> > failed
> > The previous time I tried it Dia crashed.
> > Strange little detail I had not noticed before, the Input Methods menu is
> > missing its tearoff (also missing in 0.91).
>
> Yeah, that whole thing is broken in menu-bar-mode.  Since it's going to
> disappear entirely in the next version, I'm not going to spend days looking
> for a reason.
>
> > samples/EML-demo.dia should be removed, as the shapes it needs were
> > removed
>
> True.

okay

> > I am reminded of lots of other things including:
> > should the diagram tree just show the current document?
>
> I don't see why it should.

I tend to think of thinks from a Document centric point of view.  If you
were managing a really large document it might be better not to have the
other document in the list.  Maybe (probably) there is some benifity to
having multiple documents in the list I dont understand.  I vaguely recall
this feature is similar to a "Document Explorer" feature in Visio, I
should look at how that works (I think it could be that it only shows the
current document but I really need to check these things)

> > wouldn't it be nice to be able to set the default number of sides/points
> > on a Polygon/Polyline/Beziergon/Bezier/ZigZagline?
>
> How would they be laid out by default, then?

with the points at regular intervals, by default a five sided polygon
would give you something that looked like a regular pentagon.

Zigzag line would probably be layed out something like this
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

> > why doesn't the Polyline have connection points on it, and why not
> > replace the Standard Line with single "PolyLine"?
>
> There's actually little reason to have a seperate Line when we have
> PolyLine, that's true.  A Box is still useful in the precense of a Polygon
> because of the extra restrictions.

Okay.  now that I know I should do something about it.

Feel free to slap me if i neglect to file these issues in bugzilla before
this day week.

Off to puzzle over Script-fu (of the GIMP) for a while longer, driving my
self nuts trying to write a little lisp/scheme this weekend.

Later

Alan Horkan
http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/