Change 'Flip' to 'Mirror' vocabulary #345

Just finished up refactoring “flip to mirror” in the code, and while I was at it I took the liberty to freshen up all the “Operations” tool dialogs, a few icons, and the Edit Formulas dialog. Last “mirror” thing to do is change the schema for the flippingbyline and flippingbyaxis attributes - will do that in the next schema update.

In the dialogs you will find the unused “?” and the superfluous “- Semly2D” in title bar gone. The tool icon also now shows in a dialog’s title bar. You may also notice that the order of properties is now consistent between the Dialog and the Properties Editor… just a bit more of the spaghetti-ness gone.

Old “Flliping by line” flipbyline

New “Mirror by line”


Old “Flliping by axis”


New “Mirror by axis” mirrorbyaxis

Since the Group tool will encompass more than just making objects visible, I changed the icon to a more standard grouping icon. The Visibility eye icon will still be used in the Groups Manger to indicate the visibility state. Also changed the grey in the arrow of the Rotation tool to black… it always looked like the tool was greyed out.

group@2x rotation@2x

Old and new Group tool dialogs.


Old and new Rotation tool dialogs, Note that the useless BIG = icon and the expanding / collapsing textedit box is gone. Orgin point becomes Rotation point" rotation

Old and new Move tool dialogs.


Old and new True Darts tool dialogs.


And the “Edit” forumla dialog. Since a textedit box (vs a lineedit box) can not have a Clear button, I added a “Clear” button to make it easier to clear the formula text.

Also reformatted the status text for the variable selected in the table list. It will now display as

[Variable type:] [Variable name] (unit)

and if there is a description for a measurement or custom variable it will display

[Variable type:] [Description]… otherwise it’s blank.


Only 40ish more dialogs to go…


‘Lookin’ nice!

I will miss having the Seamly2D logo on all the windows, but don’t think it’s something that we’ll be asking to be reverted any time.

The titular change is quite welcome.

The Group icon is much more intuitive than the eye.


1 Like

It makes sense to use the app icon if a dialog remains on top so you know what the window belongs to, but in the case of the tool dialogs they only show on the app screen so you should know what app your in. I just like clean lines. :slight_smile:

That’s what I thought as I was looking at it… I plan on adding the ability to add other attributes to a group - such as line color, type and width - so you can place objects in a group with a given style if you will. Then when creating a new tool you would be able to select which group an object goes in, automatically styling the object without having to select the color, type, and width everytime. So the groups will do more than just setting an item visible or not. I may at some point redefine the “groups” as “layers” in keeping with the AAMA/DXF format. The groups tool as it stands acts more like layers than it does grouping items.


It would make even more sense then! :+1:

The only drawback I see to that idea is that one node may belong to numerous layers then, & that would be weird. Of course, most of my experience with layers is doodling around with rasters in the GIMP. So whatever terminology is standard in the pattern-drafting/vector community I’ll be happy to get used to.

1 Like

I already addressed that… an object will only be able to added to 1 group at a time. Otherwise with all the permutations that can result with adding an object to different groups does get weird - and unpredictable as to it’s visibility. That “other” program who’s name shall not be said, has this problem. Again, the groups tool acts more like a layer than it does grouping objects in a vector program, where groups can be nested. Even then in a program like Corel Draw, you can’t group objects across groups, because when you click on an object it selects it’s whole group… which could then be nested. You can’t nest layers.


Two thoughts regarding this:

  1. Is sub-groups something which we do not want to have, or is it just something that has not been implemented?
  2. Would it be most excellent to name the concept something different? Such as “Bundle” or “Family”?
1 Like

Superb effort, @Douglas. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Regarding Groups: Let’s move this to another thread, here.


Just finishing up adding a feature making a change to the pattern schema so I included the final change of flippingBy tools to mirrorBy in the pattern file.