[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] A Brief Introduction to TreeRaster
- To: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] Re: [zzdev] A Brief Introduction to TreeRaster
- From: Tuomas Lukka <lukka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:15:09 +0300 (EETDST)
- Cc: ZZ Development <zzdev@xxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20000726172434.A24440@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > They should logically be even larger.
> I had it that way in some of the drafts but it looked rather odd.
> It gave emphasis to the wrong things, IMHO.
In the vertical version, that may be true. But in the horizontal, it would
possibly be worth having. Another option?
> > Also, something odd happens for the sizes if the cursor is on
> > the third level (grandchild of root) of the tree.
> What kind of oddness?
> There is a known bug that the accursed cell is not maximal if we're
> too close to the "top" (ie. the least deep part) of the tree.
Yes, that's what I mean. And the cell between the accursed cell and the
top cell is the smallest.