On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Tom Sorensen wrote:
>> I'm not sure about whether a stem is a good idea or not, either.
>
> The stem is a great idea IMO. It's particularly important for arcs, where
> you don't have the controls beziers provide.
Indeed. I'm thinking an adjustable stem would be the best. B
> I'm not sure about whether a stem is a good idea or not, either.
The stem is a great idea IMO. It's particularly important for arcs, where
you don't have the controls beziers provide.
There's numerous special cases to consider - particularly joining a curved
line to a polygon with non horizont
On 14 Mar 2002 17:48:28 -0600 "Lars Clausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure about whether a stem is a good idea or not, either.
I am. :)
Hands down, the stem is an improvement. #3 is a winner.
Regards,
--jkl
___
Dia-list mailing list
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Cyrille Chepelov wrote:
> Le Thu, Mar 14, 2002, à 05:48:28PM -0600, Lars Clausen a écrit:
>>
>> Take a look at
>> http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause/Dia/ThreeArrows.html>. It
>> shows the difference in arrow style between the old draw-on-top system
>> and what can be done w
Le Thu, Mar 14, 2002, à 05:48:28PM -0600, Lars Clausen a écrit:
>
> Take a look at http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause/Dia/ThreeArrows.html>.
> It shows the difference in arrow style between the old draw-on-top system
> and what can be done with the new extensible renderer system. I'm still
> no
Take a look at http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause/Dia/ThreeArrows.html>.
It shows the difference in arrow style between the old draw-on-top system
and what can be done with the new extensible renderer system. I'm still
not getting the arrows to point quite right, but it's an improvement. I'm
n
