X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
	:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
	:user-agent;
	bh=UpIIMwCsxWlYKnvmhtRPCQzh9r8N5FO7y8ei3pZRQFs=;
	b=LXLbrWuftf53n0RBa2luZuVhyTjbf67NoRMIzZ54WYY4Wzc6bXAt31JQofmCWYAB6N
	SnZA8btiV26+bii/bdrP9pvOEK5bdvwiuH11nKEGL4RDX3tfHjBsBpEjP4sy9b7JezuN
	sXiwyKGr9LyTzUm6YjZ1QcjpCivwiTVLtR/sIVuAj85XO2URZzQ0GZYLmEHZBjGhv8SS
	xl82cITZjz4KEtG+I4zAgNosdMke5lXf+wPwObELYsCEhwgt3+PGwQwjFLx+UruCjHEk
	su14fTXLZ2Z81Bsc61sFmxGxjWLiN+Y/Mq51sNrLIs4aMn9Ew7aiAt4BkReTi+wnglaU
	moyQ==
X-Received:	by 10.112.128.226 with SMTP id nr2mr7901194lbb.17.1387716564428;
	Sun, 22 Dec 2013 04:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Sun, 22 Dec 2013 16:49:21 +0400
From:	Vladimir Zhbanov <vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] [PATCH] Customizable graphical elements
Message-ID:	<20131222124920.GA5820@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References:	<20131213050140 DOT 4ae1f52c AT warrawoona DOT sti>
	<20131221143249 DOT GA31097 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<20131222010634 DOT 2e9d5ba8 AT warrawoona DOT sti>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20131222010634.2e9d5ba8@warrawoona.sti>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 01:06:34AM +0600, Alexey Shaposhnikov wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:32:49 +0400
> Vladimir Zhbanov <vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> 
> > IMO, the part with buses should be made as a separate patch.  Your
> > vision of buses may not be applicable to all. For instance, how to
> > distinguish the case where buses don't connect and just cross one another?
> 
> IMNSHO this (crossed but not connected buses) is a clearly bad thing and a sign
> (like more then 3 indentation levels in source code) that the schematic needs
> to be redrawn with less spaghetti. Plus with current default values (cue
> diameter for buses intersection is equal to the bus line thickness) in gEDA is
> difficult to distinguish connected buses from just crossed, and after export to
> monochrome image (which is default in gaf export) just impossible.
 
Agreed, but...
It seems to me a cue in the connection point lets the user see
during schematic capture that the bus connection exists in the
point. I don't really know what it has been made for. Probably
some users would think it is a good way to have some buses branching in
three directions, which is similar to a crossing? Or such
connection objects (indicated in such a way) could be someway
used for VHDL simulation in the future (as separate objects)? You can
also export non-monochrome schematics. I've seen many schematics where
the features of the schematic capture editor were (ab)used in many ways
so I would not be surprised if someone uses the connections of buses for
some reason. Don't even want to discuss this. Anyway, my point was the
issue with buses is a separate thing and it should be discussed
separately and let the users interested in it say their arguments.

> > I think the way buses are displayed should be at least configurable.
> 
> (Remembering xkcd strip about workflow) But here you're probably right.
I use spacebar anyway :)

> > I think you should not call eda_config_get_context_for_file every
> > time gschem creates an object.
> 
> I think in a similar way, but there is a small problem: can't come up how to
> send these values to libgeda and libgedacairo functions. Now I see two possible
> ways: add argument to o_..._new and cue drawing function or add new properties
> for TOPLEVEL and EdaRenderer objects. And I dislike them both (due to obvious
> API changing).

What's wrong with API changing? Can it break your workflow? :)

- Raw text -