protection masks and selections

[Cyrille Berger]

On Saturday 19 May 2007, Casper Boemann wrote:
> Now I wonder if we are indeed going overboard in complexity here. Do we
> really need protection masks AND per layer selections. To me they kind of
> fill the same gap.

Not really, remember a bit in the past a discution we had Thomas, you and me 
about the transform tools. In Krita 1.x, if you have a selection, you select 
the transform tool, the user do his transformation, and then it erases pixels 
outside the selection, to at least me, it seems wrong. Maybe having a 
selection that will both protect against writing and allow reading and 
creating a new layer for transformation would be the best solution to solve 
that problem.

> One thing about having both a global selection and a local selection we 
> havn't  discussed is how to combine those. Is it AND or OR (I don't imagine
> other  boolean ops are worth considering) of the selected areas
yes I was wondering the same things :) and didn't took the time to see if we 
had come up with a solution at the irc-meeting, but apparently we haven't. 
There is an other solution, if there isn't a local selection, use the global 
selection, and if there is a local selection, ignore the global one.

> If we keep protection masks we would need to change the iterators from 
> having  a selectedness() method to having readabillity() and writabillity() 
> methods  as those values could be different. That would mean some porting 
> though we  could do it in steps by just deprecating selectedness().
And what should the deprecated selectedness() return :)

-- 
Cyrille Berger