X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 21:15:46 +0200
From: Kai-Martin Knaak <kmk AT familieknaak DOT de>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] How smart is gschems 1.9.1 rubberbanding?
Message-ID: <20140809211546.5cebf09a@akka>
In-Reply-To: <1407607347.2887.13.camel@AMD64X2>
References: <1407607347 DOT 2887 DOT 13 DOT camel AT AMD64X2>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.24; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Disposition-Notification-To: Kai-Martin Knaak <kmk AT familieknaak DOT de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
 boundary="Sig_/zHDfKQz3jsYKpsV..jFZvAu"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:dfyD6VRA2YOb+jzes2VjcvRMFLRdxNwO92OKItuTt1X
 KoNkJUL1cpRWf83f0iTea2h6Fi5Ld8FzBv63UF0xQNGg12gf7S
 sFXkWt+O4Z5NKzCpJ3OobNnAIrJpUH+pcoq1SAdYVVlRKJKylL
 T0TaMBhd8P+CnMApwuRUoMwfotoTfvq3vizPh1ZIONMf2v+VJd
 OFI0VnnRd9jj7OlV4e3en+zzpJLHzdnhLCi85aUyCnCDqaxS6S
 udoryYgxtf1mYCz5y9EFFj6OzmJNJQ8aatBez3DQJ4/jTQtR6Y
 e1o0/yYS11R1sMwrJGS+eyseRsGVFp4ZU+fqbQSv66B8/tVVQ=
 =
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
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
Precedence: bulk

--Sig_/zHDfKQz3jsYKpsV..jFZvAu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Stefan Salewski <mail AT ssalewski DOT de> schrieb am  9. August 2014:

> But I understand that people may want it, and it may be useful indeed.

Count me as one of the users who want it.


> I just started thinking about how rubberbands may work -- my first idea
> was that connectivity should be always preserved, and that we should
> avoid diagonal nets.

+1=20
This is how network lines should behave by default.
In addition, it should be possible to suppress rubberbanding on the fly.
E.g. if [shift] is pressed while initiating a move event.


> Just launched gschem 1.9.1 -- seems that
> connectivity can break, and that we may get diagonal nets when moving
> objects around. Is this intended, is this what we want?

It is on my list of warts ;-)
Rubber banding should never result in non perpendicular nets. IMHO, it
would be better to disconnect than to make orthogonal lines slanted. The
disconnect would not go unnoticed, since the disconnected ends get one of
those large, red markers.

Good rubberbanding would involve a bunch of heuristics. There are some
non trivial constraints. E.g. new segments should never result in
shortened connections. Sometimes it is better to introduce an additional
segment in the middle. Sometimes, the segment should be at the end of
the stretched line.

Just my two cents.

---<)kaimartin(>---
--=20
Kai-Martin Knaak

--Sig_/zHDfKQz3jsYKpsV..jFZvAu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlPmc2oACgkQt9RkiGwLn1MlwwCfW6O/H7ezemKotOrQqoR8Crau
R/oAn2le69HyS1MjEcsk0NfP78a0dZ7d
=P3AF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/zHDfKQz3jsYKpsV..jFZvAu--