> That is too much black magic IMHO. The fields should _not_ be set
> automatically to any number.
But this is what the user expects: When the image has an aspect ratio of 2 and he enters a "4" as
width, the height should of course be set accordingly. This behaviour is e.g. also in Photoshop.
> For example, what happens if you tick the
> check box and then unset it again? This should be a noop, but with your
> patch it is not.
What is the problem in this case?
> BTW, the code that reads the bounding box from files is really bogus and
> fails not unfrequently. In particular, it does not account for the fact
> that files may be converted to other formats by LyX for the final output.
> Before this code is used for anything else than manual clipping it should
> be fixed IMHO.
OK, I assumed that the bounding box reading routine works fine for a long time
now.
> Richards solution is better IMHO. The automatic changes are restricted to a
> minimum, and the most important thing: By playing around with the settings
> the user can educate himself.
I also think this solution can be used but people expect the automatic value setting when you ask
them. But anyway, as the bounding box reading is not stable enough we should use Richard's solution.
> PS: If you want people to look at your patch make it minimal, i.e. don't do
> name changes at the same time.
This was not the case in my first patch but Abdel forced me to do the name
changing.
regards Uwe
