color library

[Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d]

On 22/06/2015 9:11 p.m., Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Hey cool. Glad to hear you had no problems.
> Sorry, I missed it. I had an early night last night (sunday night >_<)
> .. Are there recordings to review?

There is indeed!
I'll be streaming again tonight FYI.

> It's an interesting idea; knowing if a colour is convertible to some
> other colour without loss... it sounds like it leads to implicit
> conversion, but I don't think we want that here.
> I'll think on how to do it. It's not really trivial.

It shouldn't be implicit. Never implicit. Always must be asked for.
I just want functions to tell me if it is loosing or gaining precision 
in the conversion. That way it can be e.g. logged.

> On 22 June 2015 at 18:55, Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> On 22/06/2015 8:45 p.m., Andrea Fontana wrote:
>>>
>>> On Monday, 22 June 2015 at 08:08:42 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would IImage support alpha? Shouldn't that be on the color?
>>>> If so, the PR does support it see RGBA8 and friends.
>>>
>>>
>>> I said "on color or IImage". Anyway transparency is a property (mask) of
>>> an image ("material") rather than of the color itself. A color has no
>>> transparency, there's no transparency on gamut. It doesn't make sense
>>> for a color: transparency is used only when you add an image over
>>> another in order to sum the *colors* of two pixels. They used to pack
>>> alpha informations with other pixel infos (color) just for simplicity
>>> and to have a convenient way to store info inside a file, I guess.
>>>
>>>> I just had a look at antigrain. It really is beyond this code. Well
>>>> and truly out of scope.
>>>
>>>
>>> I mean it would be useful to grab some ideas from it.
>>> And that it would really wonderful to have something like this.
>>>
>>> However I think it is useful to build the library and interfaces
>>> thinking also to possible future developments.
>>>
>>> Andrea
>>
>>
>> Humm, I can add it as an optional part of the interface like pixel offset.
>> Maybe. But it does feel a little less like other libraries out there.
>>
>> The main reason I'm put off of antigrain is it feels a little too much
>> unwieldy to me.
>>
>> But of course, I can't dismiss your guys suggestions so of course I'll dig
>> more deeper into it! Even if I do drag my heels a little bit.