<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Cyrille Berger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cberger@cberger.net">cberger@cberger.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Monday 17 May 2010, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">> > 2- merge pixel, eraser, pencil, mix and soft paintops (Better break<br>
> ><br>
> > presets now, than when we'll have millions of users :p)<br>
><br>
> True. Though I'm not sure about merging eraser and pencil.<br>
</div>Well, to be honest eraser only exists because people would not think about<br>
using the eraser mode in the freehand tool ;) (me the first) They already have<br>
issues with finding eraser as paintop...<br></blockquote></div><br>There a three possible ways: tool, paintop and composite op<br><br>As tool is what most other apps have. It has the advantage that it would be easy to discover and can be used with all paintops.<br>
The disadvantage is that it can't be used with shape tools.<br><br>With an erase paintop, the shape tools can be used with the erase paintop. On the other hand the paintop can't be used with other paintops.<br>It also duplicates the pixel brush paintop.<br>
<br>Composite op erase works with shape tools and any paintop. It would suffice for any usecase, but it's very hard to find.<br><br>So the questions is: Is is better to fallback to erase composite op when using a different paintop (erase paintop) or when using a shape tool (erase tool)?<br>
Of course you can have all, but the outcome of an eraser tool, with erase paintop and erase paintop would be a bit unpredictable ;)<br>