The future of selections and masks in Krita

[Casper Boemann]

On Monday 31 July 2006 22:55, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> Or even nicer to just move the selection to the other layer?
Well no because that requires a drag and drop on top of a click to select the 
layer, possible even requiring some precise manouvering of the pointer.

> That's basically what Photoshop and the Gimp have -- which they do not have
> because of any design, but because of the way the history of Photoshop has
> progressed from Mac Paint type selections, which turned out to be
> insufficiently powerful when layers where added, but which couldn't be
> removed (the global selection) to masks -- which are just per-layer
> selections, nothing else -- to vector based shapes.
Sorry but what do you base this history lesson on ;) I would like to read 
that.

> I stand by what I have written in the todo for 2.0 about selections, and
> what we discussed during the Krita hackathon: one or more masks/selections
> (there is no difference) per layer that can be copied and moved between
> layers.
Selections and masks are _not_ the same. Selections select an area 
providing "write masking" and a subject for modification while masks affect 
the viability of a layer. Selections are transient things while masks are 
part of the document.

And we didn't agree to what you wrote in the todo at the Krita Hackathon. What 
we did agree on was that the underlying structure, an alpha colorspace, was 
the same and so conversions could easily occour, perhaps even share a 
superclass. To be fair I do remember you talking about this at the hackathon, 
but I also remember me objecting although it didn't turn into a big 
discussion.

> I do not think that is complex: not more complex than making an artificial
> distinction between selections and masks. The case for "unconventional" for
> Arthur here simply boils down to "cannot use my photoshop manual with
> Krita".
Well it also goes against every other applications that never has different 
selections in different parts of the document.

> I think that nothing can be simpler than having just one mechanism for
> selecting pixels; making that visually explicit by showing the selection
> mask in the layer box and making it possible to manipulate it exactly like
> a layer (copying, pasting, painting, filling, moving up & down).
Hmm manipulating a selection like it is a normal layer is nice as long as all 
you want to do is paint on it, but things like select similar and flood 
select require a stronger connection to a layer (either as want the layer in 
question or as I want the current layer). Either way you cannot decouple it 
fentirely and treat a selection as simply a layer.

Besides it sounds like nonsence to me that something manipulation/view 
oriented is also part of the document.

-- 
best regards / venlig hilsen
Casper Boemann