Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!ai.mit.edu!sundar
From: sundar@ai.mit.edu (Sundar Narasimhan)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: X{Put,Get}Scanline (was Re: XImages)
Message-ID: <12607@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 91 07:23:11 GMT
References: <935@attc.UUCP> <9012172158.AA07950@expire.lcs.mit.edu> <938@attc.UUCP> <1990Dec19.225710.4008@dsd.es.com> <3391@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <949@attc.UUCP>
Sender: news@ai.mit.edu
Reply-To: sundar@ai.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Lines: 12

In article <949@attc.UUCP>, marbru@attc.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) writes:
|> In article <3391@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> etaylor@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Eric Taylor) writes:
|> >X{PutGet}ScanLine sounds like one of the best ideas I have heard
|> >in a while concerning images.  This would be a VERY good way to
|> >speed up imaging applications without having to sacrifice 
|> >generality for different depths.
|> 
|>    And it can be added to the XImage structure without any loss
|>    of (upwards) compatibility.
Is there any reason not to make this independent of the routines 
needed to deal with XImages? I can see other programs which have
nothing to do with Images benefitting from X{PutGet}ScanLine.