On 2024-07-18 03:14, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 09:41:18PM +0200, Simon Walter wrote:
> ...
>> There is a problem I have with KDE, and that has to do with a bit of the
>> history of what the devs decide. They decided to follow QT's cycle and
>> spending effort moving to new QT release, and have argued that it will
>> pay off. Maybe it has. I don't know. What I didn't like is that they
>> seem to sacrifice polish (fixing bugs) for chasing the new QT. Or
>> chasing some amazing new paradigm of computing that is totally not even
>> asked for. This means that I have never ever had a perfectly working KDE
>> desktop. I think KDE 2 was the most bug free I've used. I've noticed a
>> steady improvement in this area since 5, with long standing bugs being
>> fixed. So maybe it has payed off.
>
> Have they ever removed the limitation that pixel coordinates have to fit
> into 16-bit words?
>
> This may have mad sense in the old days, but it was a real hindrance
> when I wanted a large scroll region.

Let me understand this.

Are you saying that the way the screen is/was drawn, the placing of the
pixels, had the coordinates using 16 "addresses" so to speak? Does that
also limit the area? I will not attempt the math this early in the morning.

How does this affect scroll region... oh, I see. The scrollable area may
be considerably larger than the "viewport" - if I may call it that.

I would assume that such a limitation no longer exists. I wonder if it
was a QT limitation back then or a KDE library / kwin limitation.