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 |
X-Mailer: | exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 with nmh-1.6 |
X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: | repl |
X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: | inbox |
From: | karl AT aspodata DOT se |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] adventures using arrows (for documentation), or cross my lines |
In-reply-to: | <1531363092.2191172.1437992056.3A4E875E@webmail.messagingengine.com> |
References: | <20180702125528 DOT D32CF81F76FE AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <20180709204944 DOT GA921 AT debian DOT lokolhoz> <1531286153 DOT 3131974 DOT 1436831304 DOT 36E05F01 AT webmail DOT messagingengine DOT com> <20180711182359 DOT 227FE81F772D AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <1531363092 DOT 2191172 DOT 1437992056 DOT 3A4E875E AT webmail DOT messagingengine DOT com> |
Comments: | In-reply-to "Edward Hennessy (ehennes+oss AT fastmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> |
message dated "Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:38:12 -0700." | |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
Message-Id: | <20180712035816.26F69841DE80@turkos.aspodata.se> |
Date: | Thu, 12 Jul 2018 05:58:16 +0200 (CEST) |
X-Virus-Scanned: | ClamAV using ClamSMTP |
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 |
Ed: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, at 11:23 AM, karl AT aspodata DOT se wrote: > > Edward Hennesy: > >> I’d like to suggest a fourth option: > >> D, Add another line style “TYPE_NONE” where the line is not drawn. > > > > I would not support that idea, better is to have no default width and> instead of writing 0 in the line width column, write a real width > > like 5 or 10, and let 0 in effect be either "as thin as possible" or > > "no line". > > Older schematics and symbols in existing libraries contain 0 in the line > width. Yes, it's stupid. > Maintaining backward compatibility and a new definition of width > 0 would be more difficult to implement. Yes. Perhaps the only place it is useful to have width = 0 is in filled paths, and I'm guessing that paths are not much used, so one could break compatibility just there without too much breakage. Regards, /Karl Hammar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Aspö Data Lilla Aspö 148 S-742 94 Östhammar Sweden +46 173 140 57
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |