MetaCard compatibility patterns

[Mark Wieder]

Monte Goulding <monte at ...> writes:

> As a result of some contributions Mark Wieder is making to fix some issues
with reset paint I have identified
> some issues with setting patterns to a patternNumber (rather than image id).
These are documented as
> patternNumber 1 to 164 being translated by the engine to image id 136 to 300.
It turns out we don’t have the
> full set in the IDE. I’m not sure how to get hold of MetaCard these days but
I’m pretty sure there’s
> some people here that do so what I’d like to know is does it contain all
image IDs 136 to 300?

Some thoughts on this:

The whole remapping thing is weird, and it may be time to rethink this.
The way things have always worked is that setting a brush, spray, or eraser)
assigns a number that is an index into the list of 35 built-in brushes. So
setting the brush to 8 actually points to image id 108 for the brush, even
though querying for the brush does indeed return 8.

Currently
id 1..135 -> id + 100

Soon (with the fix I'm implementing)
id 1..35 -> id + 100
id 36.. -> no change

Now... since this process is (or at least has been) fairly transparent to the
end user (does anyone actually rely on a brush of 8 being image id 108?) I'd
rather do one of two things (or both):

1. assign the brush to the actual image id instead of the index
2. reassign ids to the brush images so that the correspond and no mapping is
involved.

Would this break anything that anybody relies on? Does anyone use the actual
brush image ids? Or care what the actual brush *numbers* are?

And the same, of course, would apply to pattern mapping.

-- 
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftware at gmail.com