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 |
Message-ID: | <20151003175604.21282.qmail@stuge.se> |
Date: | Sat, 3 Oct 2015 19:56:04 +0200 |
From: | "Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] Clutterless user interface or even more custom |
special super features? | |
Mail-Followup-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
References: | <56100AF8 DOT 4090802 AT jump-ing DOT de> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
In-Reply-To: | <56100AF8.4090802@jump-ing.de> |
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 |
Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > 3. Try to make Undo() independent from this query. Certainly! > 4. Remove these special modes. That'd be LOCKNAMESFLAG, HIDENAMESFLAG > and ONLYNAMESFLAG. .. > 5.: 3. and 4. together. Maybe. > I tend to do 4., then 3.. Removing a user-visible feature risks breaking someone's workflow no matter how awkward or obscure the feature is. The question is what to do if someone reports a regression. WONTFIX is valid, as is a longer-term project to change the data model, so that these operations are just a superset of more generic operations. I for one wouldn't mind pcb losing this particular complexity. Thanks for looking into it. //Peter
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright � 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |