Node break join question

hello everyone, please i have a question.
when I draw a rectangle and move to the nodes I don’t see them right away, I have to break first and then join the selected shapes or convert to path.
every time I draw a polygon I first have to convert to path, after this step can I elaborate the shape.
am i missing something? what is the point of making a square and not immediately seeing the 4 nodes at the corners?
for example if I have to make a trapezoid before processing the polygon I always have to break and join, I don’t understand why it’s not automatic and the nodes are immediately visible.
what use has a figure seen in the nodes without being converted to path? I can’t even move it, I don’t understand what this intermediate phase can be used for and why it’s not always converted to path automatically.

1 Like

A “polygon” is a fundamental object, a “path” has editable nodes.

You can edit the Shape Properties of that square to, for example, change its corner rounding.

A path is no longer a fundamental shape: you can move the nodes around as you like, but you cannot change its overall geometry.

When a shape (square, polygon, ellipse, whatever) tool is active, you can create multiple shapes in quick succession. When you want to move those shapes to a different place, you must select one (or more) of them, which requires switching to the selection tool.

Reviewing the doc on the various tools may help explain how they work and what they’re intended to do:

1 Like

thank you, let’s assume an hipotetic update: what functions would be lost if entering the nodes function you only find automatically traced objects?
If you make any preliminary modification to a figure, for example boolean or radius, the nodes are generated automatically. why not everything?
What would be lost if this automatic node generation happened immediately upon entering the nodes function?
if node generation were always automatic as soon as I entered the dedicated node function, what possibilities would be lost compared to how the program is written now?

That’d be one for the folks actually doing the UI design, not an innocent (snerk) bystander such as I.

For me, maintaining the distinction between “pure” geometric shapes and whatever messes I might make by hand seems reasonable. When I want a rectangular object, those 90° corners are important, so having an extra step to create the nodes is no Bad Thing™.

With Undo as my best friend, however, it might not make that much difference. :grin:

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.