Hi Bram!
On Do, 12 Jun 2014, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
>
> Christian wrote:
>
> > Bram,
> > I noticed, when displaying icon signs in the gui version of Vim there
> > might be a small line not overdrawn by the sign, caused by the
> > 'linespace' setting set to be one. That does look rather ugly, if you
> > display several signs side by side (see attached screenshot).
>
> Do you mean that the dark line below the "+" sign should not be there?
> And if 'linespace' is set to zero that black line is indeed gone?
It goes away, if I set linespace to -1. But that has other screen
problems.
>
> > Here is a patch. A couple of comments:
> > 1) I am not sure, why a call to gdk_draw_rectangle() is done in the
> > existing code. I have left it out as it seems to be unnecessary
>
> I believe this is needed to first clear the area with the background
> color, in case the icon drawn is smaller than the available space.
> Perhaps you can try it with a rectangular icon, vertically and
> horizontally. E.g. something like a red exclamation mark. There would
> need to be some other sign at first to see any effect.
I used an rectangular icon. But you are right, this was probably done
for making sure, transparent icons are drawn correctly. I thought about
using transparent signs, but I don not want to use different icons for
different builts (e.g. png for GTK and bmp for Windows), so I usually
use the same icon everywhere.
>
> > 2) not sure, why a height of 127 was hard coded when drawing the size
> > area. I have used the actual sign size for that
>
> The 127 is the value for "alpha_threshold". At least according to the
> documentation I found.
Ah my bad, I got confused by the non_alpha function.
>
> > 3) when the sign hight differs from the char_height, it will always be
> > rescaled. This of course has the additional disadvantage of causing a
> > performance issue. Not sure, if this is noticeable, though.
>
> I don't think we should worry about performance.
>
> It appears that after your change the aspect ratio of the sign is not
> kept. Although that would be OK for filling the gap, if the sign was
> really a different shape it would look weird. In your specific case you
> would want the sign to fill the available space and probably don't care
> about keeping the aspect ratio. Adding a setting for this woule make it
> complicated...
>
> How about this: if we can fill the available space with a slightly
> different ascpect ratio, e.g., 10% different, filling the gap is nicer
> than the slightly different aspect ratio. If we change the aspect ratio
> more than 10% or so the icon will start looking weird and we stick to
> the aspect ratio and as a result there will be a gap (either vertically
> or horizontally).
>
> The names are a bit confusing, SIGN_ASPECT actually means the aspect
> ratio of the space availeble, with "aspect" is the aspect ratio of the
> sign being drawn.
>
> This also very much depends on the font size, since the space used for
> the icon is two character cells wide and one character cell plus
> 'linespace' high.
Okay, how about the attached patch (it allows 15% deviation to the
aspect ratio (so one can change linespace value by at most 2 for a sign
of 16x16 pixel and the sign will be completely filled)
Best,
Christian
--
Kennst Du den Unterschied zwischen einem Arbeitslosen und einem Beamten?
Arbeitslose haben schon einmal gearbeitet.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
diff --git a/src/gui_gtk_x11.c b/src/gui_gtk_x11.c
--- a/src/gui_gtk_x11.c
+++ b/src/gui_gtk_x11.c
@@ -5967,25 +5967,42 @@ gui_mch_drawsign(int row, int col, int t
* tiny differences in font size.
*/
need_scale = (width > SIGN_WIDTH + 2
- || height > SIGN_HEIGHT + 2
+ || height != SIGN_HEIGHT /* might differ because of linespaceing */
|| (width < 3 * SIGN_WIDTH / 4
&& height < 3 * SIGN_HEIGHT / 4));
if (need_scale)
{
double aspect;
+ int w = width;
+ int h = height;
/* Keep the original aspect ratio */
aspect = (double)height / (double)width;
width = (double)SIGN_WIDTH * SIGN_ASPECT / aspect;
width = MIN(width, SIGN_WIDTH);
- height = (double)width * aspect;
-
- /* This doesn't seem to be worth caching, and doing so
- * would complicate the code quite a bit. */
- sign = gdk_pixbuf_scale_simple(sign, width, height,
- GDK_INTERP_BILINEAR);
- if (sign == NULL)
- return; /* out of memory */
+ if (((double)(MAX(height, SIGN_HEIGHT)) /
+ (double)(MIN(height, SIGN_HEIGHT))) < 1.15)
+ {
+ /* allow to change the aspect ratio by at most 15% so the
+ * lines will get filled completly */
+ height = (double)SIGN_HEIGHT * SIGN_ASPECT / aspect;
+ height = MIN(height, SIGN_HEIGHT);
+ }
+ else
+ height = (double)width * aspect;
+
+ if (w != width || h != height) /* no change in dimensions */
+ {
+ /* This doesn't seem to be worth caching, and doing so
+ * would complicate the code quite a bit. */
+ sign = gdk_pixbuf_scale_simple(sign, width, height,
+ GDK_INTERP_BILINEAR);
+ if (sign == NULL)
+ return; /* out of memory */
+ }
+ else
+ /* don't decrease reference counter (below) */
+ need_scale = FALSE;
}
/* The origin is the upper-left corner of the pixmap. Therefore
