<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"><html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /><style type="text/css">p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; }</style></head><body style=" font-family:'Sans Serif'; font-size:10pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;">Well. alright then. let it stay the way it is. I'm firmly against imposing on users yet another *great* feature they will never use (mostly cos they will never know about it).<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p>On Tuesday 24 of February 2009 12:28:23 Matthew Woehlke wrote:<br>
> Eugene Trounev wrote:<br>
> > On Tuesday 24 of February 2009 09:47:33 Matthew Woehlke wrote:<br>
> >> I think you omitted the part I dislike most; you're removing the ability<br>
> >> to have a /background/ independent of the cards. (I notice Luciano makes<br>
> >> the same objection ;-).)<br>
> ><br>
> > Well, it doesn't work now anyways, so no losses there.<br>
><br>
> Not entirely. If you tie the background to the deck now, it may be<br>
> harder to change later (especially as right now it isn't tied; you'd be<br>
> doing work just to undo it again, wouldn't you?).<br>
><br>
> >> Also, I still think it would be nice if the deck (which can include its<br>
> >> own back) specifies the "style" of back and would let you pick other<br>
> >> backs of the same style (i.e. size and shape). Else if you just want a<br>
> >> different back, you have to copy an entire deck.<br>
> ><br>
> > And right now if you want to have different tiles with the same pictures<br>
> > in mahjongg you have to copy them over too.<br>
><br>
> You mean change the tile but not the glyphs? Well... if you change the<br>
> tile, there is a good chance you want to change the glyphs also, if only<br>
> color, so it's not the same. Card fronts and backs have a pretty neat<br>
> separation.<br>
><br>
> > I don't see anyone doing that.<br>
><br>
> Imperial Jade appears to be a copy of Default... with the glyph colors<br>
> all changed to white.<br>
><br>
> > Specifying shape's a bit of an overkill if you ask me. Besides how would<br>
> > you describe a *style*?<br>
><br>
> You mistake my meaning. A "style" is size plus shape, e.g. "4:3 rounded<br>
> 5%" or "4:5 sharp".<br>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p><p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; -qt-user-state:0;"><br></p></body></html>