[GRASS-dev] [r41158-60] d.vect: default line width to '1'

GRASS GRASS developer
1

re [r41158-60] d.vect: default line width to '1'

it is not correct. the default line width should be 0.
(at least in 6.x, I'm not sure about the display libs in 7)

see discussion in the ML archives if interested in why, or ping me later.

Hamish

2

2010/2/22 Hamish <hamish_b@yahoo.com>:

re [r41158-60] d.vect: default line width to '1'

it is not correct. the default line width should be 0.
(at least in 6.x, I'm not sure about the display libs in 7)

see discussion in the ML archives if interested in why, or ping me later.

so why? testing all version, I cannot see difference between 0 and 1.

Martin

--
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa

3

2010/2/22 Martin Landa <landa.martin@gmail.com>:

[...]

see discussion in the ML archives if interested in why, or ping me later.

so why? testing all version, I cannot see difference between 0 and 1.

anyway from user POV width=0 seems quite strange I guess.

Martin

--
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa

4

Martin Landa wrote:

>> see discussion in the ML archives if interested in why, or ping me later.
>
> so why? testing all version, I cannot see difference between 0 and 1.

anyway from user POV width=0 seems quite strange I guess.

XDRIVER passes the line width directly to XChangeGC. X specifies the
precise behaviour for non-zero line width, but drivers have some
freedom as to how zero-width lines are handled, so they can use the
hardware's "thin line" drawing primitive, if it has one. A width of
zero can potentially result in significantly faster operation.

--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>

5

Hi,

2010/2/22 Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>:

anyway from user POV width=0 seems quite strange I guess.

XDRIVER passes the line width directly to XChangeGC. X specifies the
precise behaviour for non-zero line width, but drivers have some
freedom as to how zero-width lines are handled, so they can use the
hardware's "thin line" drawing primitive, if it has one. A width of
zero can potentially result in significantly faster operation.

OK, so should I revert the changes?

Martin

--
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa

6

Martin Landa wrote:

>> anyway from user POV width=0 seems quite strange I guess.
>
> XDRIVER passes the line width directly to XChangeGC. X specifies the
> precise behaviour for non-zero line width, but drivers have some
> freedom as to how zero-width lines are handled, so they can use the
> hardware's "thin line" drawing primitive, if it has one. A width of
> zero can potentially result in significantly faster operation.

OK, so should I revert the changes?

I think that the default line width should be zero, i.e. "thin" lines.
On drivers where there is no such thing as a "thin" line, the driver
will use a sensible default (which might not be the same as "1").

--
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>

7

> OK, so should I revert the changes?

Glynn:

I think that the default line width should be zero, i.e. "thin" lines.
On drivers where there is no such thing as a "thin" line, the driver
will use a sensible default (which might not be the same as "1").

(done.)

8

2010/2/24 Hamish <hamish_b@yahoo.com>:

[...]

(done.)

and explained in the manual pages.

Martin

--
Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://gama.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa