X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <1407608776.2887.20.camel@AMD64X2>
Subject: [geda-user] Re: How smart is gschems 1.9.1 rubberbanding?
From: Stefan Salewski <mail AT ssalewski DOT de>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:26:16 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1407607347.2887.13.camel@AMD64X2>
References: <1407607347 DOT 2887 DOT 13 DOT camel AT AMD64X2>
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
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

On Sat, 2014-08-09 at 20:02 +0200, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> and that we may get diagonal nets when moving
> objects around.

For example, what surprises me:
When we move in gschem the horizontal net to the right,

     |
     |
     |
 ----------

we get this:

    \
     \
      \
 ----------

My initial idea was to let the vertical net unchanged, but maybe gschems
behaviour is indeed better for this case? At least it is more rubberband
like.