X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Envelope-From: paubert AT iram DOT es
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:57:59 +0200
From: Gabriel Paubert <paubert AT iram DOT es>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] [PATCH 0/3] Improve imperial drill files Gerber
 exporter (and pcb-printf).
Message-ID: <20130418175758.GB10466@visitor2.iram.es>
References: <20130418140806 DOT GA8618 AT gra-vd1 DOT iram DOT es>
 <20130418162031 DOT GB18583 AT malakian DOT lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130418162031.GB18583@malakian.lan>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spamina-Bogosity: Ham
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
Precedence: bulk

	Hi Andrew,

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 09:20:31AM -0700, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:08:06PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> > 	Hello,
> > 
> > I have started fixing a few problems in Gerber exporter:
> > - use 0.1mil resolution for drill files (Excellon format)
> > - avoid runaway aperture number allocation
> > 
> > Since it involved touching pcb-prinf.[ch], I took the opportunity
> > to improve comments and perform a couple of cleanups.
> > 
> > These patches pass the test suite, this does not mean that no 
> > bugs are introduced, but, loooking at the output under gerbv,
> > drills were better centered on pins in the example I tried.
> > 
> > I have other patches in the pipeline, but they depend on these
> > first 3.
> >
> 
> Hi Gabriel,
> 
> 
> The patches all look good to me. I'll have to look over that
> 'redundant check' you removed, because it's not clear from the
> patch what that check originally did or why it's unnecessary.

To be precise the original redundant check was:

  while (printf_spec[i] == '%' || isdigit(printf_spec[i]) ||
         printf_spec[i] == '-' || printf_spec[i] == '+' ||
         printf_spec[i] == '#' || printf_spec[i] == '0')

but "is_digit(x)" is a superset of "x == '0'", so I eliminated the latter.
 

> Maybe somebody with more experience with gcode can check over
> the gcode changes. But they seem reasonable to me.

Which gcode? I have not touched the gcode exporter AFAIK.

> 
> 
> When I get a chance to check on that check, and assuming no NAK's
> come in, I'll push these.

Thanks for taking care of it.

	Gabriel