**Mail Archives: geda-user/2013/01/17/18:35:35**
On Jan 17, 2013, at 3:42 PM, Colin D Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:24:44 -0200
> Antonio Todo Bom âœˆ <atodobom AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>
>> Nothing special.
>> Just think that if a function analyzes whether an angle is zero or
>> negative, as if this was an error. So should not leave yet as
>> error. Alternatively, changes to analyze only if is negative.
>>
>>
>> Well, for consistency a zero radius circle should render as a
>> point at
>>> display resolution, since for larger radii it renders as a
>>> curve at display resolution. [snip]
>>>
>>
>> Looking from this point of view. I think it is really interesting
>> to tolerate circles with radius zero.
>
> Maybe a cleaner way would be to add a new geometric entity, the
> 'point'. Then we can require, and subsequently assume, that
> circles have a radius greater than zero. Which is what geometry
> demands.
I disagree. Zero is a perfectly respectable radius for a circle to have. And as I've noted before, other objects of zero size can be handy.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com

*- Raw text -*