markg added a comment.
Hi Nate,
I'm afraid this will give inconsistent frames, at least that will be the perception of the user.
The hasAlpha function on a QPixmap (probably) boils down to executing this function:
bool QX11PlatformPixmap::hasAlphaChannel() const
{
if (picture && d == 32)
return true;
if (x11_mask && d == 1)
return true;
return false;
}
But there are quite some places in Qt where the alpha channel checks are done differently.The above would be for X11, it's likely different on wayland, etc...
So where is this going to be inconsistent? Well, with images that "have" an alpha channel but don't use it.
This happens when saving an image. It's often a setting to keep transparency or not (it is in photoshop and gimp).
Therefore you can - and will - have people that have images with an alpha channel but don't use it so they don't get a frame. While the very same image when saved differently (and in png as well) will have a frame. That's going to be a bug report from that user i guess ;)
Having said that, i'm much more in favor of an all-or-nothing approach. Not some logic somewhere that dictates when an image has a frame and when it doesn't.
We've had frames for years so perhaps it's time to just flip the switch and see how users like it. So just flip that switch by default to no frames.
REPOSITORY
R318 Dolphin
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D15069
To: ngraham, #dolphin, broulik, elvisangelaccio
Cc: markg, anthonyfieroni, elvisangelaccio, kfm-devel, spoorun, navarromorales, firef, andrebarros, emmanuelp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.kde.org/mailman/private/kfm-devel/attachments/20180825/d7d167d8/attachment.htm>