X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Message-ID: <1407607347.2887.13.camel@AMD64X2> Subject: [geda-user] How smart is gschems 1.9.1 rubberbanding? From: Stefan Salewski To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:02:27 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com While doing some more cleanup, I noticed that I have missed rubberband support in my peted tool. I have not really missed it, I think when I used gschem some years ago for the last time I always deactivated it. But I understand that people may want it, and it may be useful indeed. 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. 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? I have no idea. I just do not want to spent some hours of work for my own rubberbanding and then discover that that gschems way is better. I think there was one suggestion for improving gschem rubberbanding postet to this list, maybe one or two years ago. Has someone still a reference?