X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<50CB5ABA.6050806@zepler.net>
Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:58:34 +0000
From:	Chris Smith <cjs94 AT zepler DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Find rat lines
References:	<20121204183305 DOT 6b04c0dc AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org> <20121208112649 DOT 388a9d22 AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org> <1355011808 DOT 19390 DOT 8 DOT camel AT localhost> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212090407031 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv> <1355188647 DOT 12937 DOT 14 DOT camel AT localhost> <A7B4EDBD-3704-4837-9350-A16559C60A2A AT noqsi DOT com> <1355442697 DOT 2993 DOT 14 DOT camel AT localhost> <008677C3-7BA0-4B7D-B8E7-D0A5B2CCC573 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212140350530 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv> <898C7D41-7B55-4D61-9CC6-7ABB560C144E AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212140458230 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv> <5189151C-7C93-4AD6-A154-185C8F7AC203 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212140537520 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv> <6E00459F-C749-4DE5-B182-44A8623E70E8 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212141012260 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv> <C0A29256-3D74-4C3F-B2A0-150F85C85047 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212141116350 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv> <50CB1FFC DOT 1010600 AT zepler DOT net> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212141419090 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv> <50CB4CD3 DOT 3080707 AT zepler DOT net> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212141720400 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv>
In-Reply-To:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1212141720400.26605@igor2priv>
X-Enigmail-Version:	1.4.6
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 14/12/2012 16:28, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Chris Smith wrote:
> 
>> On 14/12/2012 13:41, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>>>
[snip]
>>>
>>> 1. what happens if I cut an existing, tagged net in a way a segment
>>> falls off? Does it become a floating (not associated) net or, does it
>>> keep its tag reflecting original user intention?
>>
>> IMHO, the system should never automatically change an attribute from a
>> specific to a more general value -- to do so is effectively throwing
>> away information.  The track segment should keep its association; the
>> user can manually change it if desired.
> 
> Yes, this is one of the approaches. Advantage is simplicity without
> losing info, drawback is more manual tweaking when one doesn't build
> things incrementally but breaks/rewires.

But how much manual tweaking is that, really?  In the worst case you've
changed the operation from 'delete segment' to 'delete segment', 'move
mouse over floating net' and 'press "disassociate net" hotkey'.  It
really doesn't seem that big a deal to me.

> So beside this method retrains more information about user intention,
> which is good, in many cases it would highlight something very similar
> to a minimal cut.

Yes, but minimal cut (or any such algorithm) works in hindsight and can
only guess which user action caused the problem.  The advantage of net
association is that it can work online -- it can tell the user 'what you
are doing right now is going to cause a problem', and that, to me, makes
it vastly superior.  It's analogous to DRC and Auto-enforce/online DRC.

Chris
-- 
Chris Smith <cjs94 AT zepler DOT net>

- Raw text -