Re: Duplication Offset

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 05:04:01PM +0100, Bernhard Herzog wrote:
> Bernhard Reiter <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Giving an offset to duplication allowed a few nice tricks,
> > so there should be a funcational replacement.
> > When you were thinking of not readding it, 
> > what kind of funcational replacement did you have in mind?

> The DuplicateObjects method used to take the offset as a parameter.
> When I was reimplementing the method and was modifying the interface
> anyway, I decided to remove that parameter.  The method returns a list
> with all the newly created objects so any translation or other
> modification can easily be done by the caller.  

Thanks for the explanations.
From reading them I think that you have made the best decision.

> All of this is still quite independend of whether the Duplicate command
> in the menu translates the objects.  The translation could easily be
> done in the command implementation by having it call TranslateSelected
> after DuplicateSelected.
> 
> That the command doesn't do the translation at the moment was
> deliberately done so that we could discuss whether we need it.  I for
> one practically never use it.  I always have the offset set to (0, 0).
> What I would probably use is a transformation dialog that allows me to
> apply precise transformations to the selected objects with the option to
> duplicate the objects before the transformation.  That kind of feature
> would obviously include the current duplication offset feature.  One
> disadvantage of not moving the duplicated objects is that new users may
> find the command confusing because the drawing looks the same afterwards.

Duplication is very nice in drawings where you want some regular pattern.
Like seperation lines for days or weeks in a time shift
or for a dot pattern to fill a polygon.
Hitting one key to do this and then just hit that key between 5 and 20 times
was verf comfortable to use.

pgpQaVU6WcRqX.pgp
Description: PGP signature