Default pixel and paint device bounds

Sven Langkamp sven.langkamp at
Sun Sep 12 14:01:50 CEST 2010

On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Boudewijn Rempt <boud at> wrote:

> On Sunday 12 September 2010, Marc wrote:
> > Yesterday I fixed bug 245778 in the transform workers, though the
> > problem might still appear in other places.
> > Actually, the problem came from the fact that the first layer had a non
> > transparent default pixel. In that case, KisPaintDevice's exactBounds
> > and extent return defaultBounds (which is set to (0,0),(image width,
> > image height)) : that isn't really what the transform workers expect
> > when calling exactBounds.
> > For now, the transform workers check whether the default pixel is
> > transparent or not. If it isn't, then it uses the dataManager extent
> > instead of paintDevice bounds.
> > It might be good to consider changing the exactBounds() behaviour when
> > default pixel is not transparent (sven wondered whether we could unite
> > the default bounds with the data manager in that case).
> I think that exactBounds is used in a number of different ways and that it
> makes sense to add a parameter to the function to manage the handling of
> non-transparent default pixel paint devices, something like
> exactBounds(bool alwaysCalculate = false);
> ?

Or add an enum (normal extent, extent or defaultbounds, extent united with
For the transform tool only the normal extent is needed, I think.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the kimageshop mailing list