On 13 Aug 2003, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> This seems related to the current discussion on views. A layer is a
> piecewise disjoint subset of objects (please correct me if I'm wrong
> here--I don't use layers that much) in which the object positions are
That's one way to describe it. Also, there is a z-ordering on the layers.
> A view (as I am proposing it) would be an arbitrary subset of
> objects in which the object positions are allowed (but not required) to
> vary. Effectively an independent diagram with the restriction that the
> included objects must be a subset of the "base" diagram.
> I've been thinking, and I was wondering if it would cause anyone pain if
> we extended the current Dia view function to the description above?
So as you change from view to view, the same object may have different
positions? That sounds complex. It means that an object no longer just
has one position, like many things assume, but have a number of possible
positions depending on the view.
> It seems like I could do it so that the basic original view capability is
> preserved. There would probably be some additional interface complexity,
> but I think the end result would be more useful than current views.
Right now, I'm not sure it's worth the additional effort, it'd be a major
Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause)| HĂ„rdgrim of Numenor
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I |----------------------------
will defend to the death your right to say it." | Where are we going, and
--Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire | what's with the handbasket?