delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
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 |
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 |
--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--
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |