Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/03/27/19:40:52
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:15:58AM +0200, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> Stephen Ecob <stephen DOT ecob AT sioi DOT com DOT au> schrieb am Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:10:17 +1100:
>
> > Longer term I'd personally prefer G and Shift-G to cycle through a set
> > of user defined grids.
>
> A set of (user defined) grids surely is the way to go.
> I wouldn't care for cycling, though. Better default to some reasonable
> close to exponential growth when beyond the user supplied fixed grid sizes.
> E.g, like this: 10 -> 20 -> 50 -> 100 -> 200 -> 500 -> 1000 -> 2000 ...
>
I'd bet there's no "reasonable close-to-exponential growth" beyond
user-defined fixed sizes, that wouldn't cause a fair bit of controversy.
> There should be at least two different sets of grids -- metric and imperial
>
The way to go about this, for anyone who has time is likely to modify
the gpcb-menu.res and pcb-menu.res syntax to allow submenus to have
"cycle up" and "cycle down" keys. Then through the metric and imperial
grid sizes into separate submenus.
But that would take a fair bit of time and effort to implement.
> I'd prefer "[" and "]" to ascend and descend through the values. These
> are accel keys my fingers already know from gschem.
>
I agree with this. Right now '[' and ']' are set by default to "temp
arrow on" and "temp arrow off", a feature I had no clue existed until
just now... however, we need (at least) two keypairs, one for cycling
through metric sizes, another for cycling through imperial ones.
Given that, it makes more sense to stick with g/Sh-g and Alt-g/Alt-Sh-g
IMHO.
--
Andrew Poelstra
Email: asp11 at sfu.ca OR apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web: http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew
"You shouldn't trust every quote you read on the Internet." -- Socrates
- Raw text -