X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-TCPREMOTEIP: 63.119.35.194 X-Authenticated-UID: jpd AT noqsi DOT com Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_83C1D5C9-E774-496A-B3A6-7D3D61CF3A1E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) Subject: Re: [geda-user] Re: some more geometry module tweaks (sorry, wall of text) X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2 From: John Doty In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 07:00:54 -0500 Message-Id: <3FD00F19-8C76-4825-B001-0341507C1212@noqsi.com> References: To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) 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 --Apple-Mail=_83C1D5C9-E774-496A-B3A6-7D3D61CF3A1E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Jan 5, 2016, at 11:53 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote: >=20 >=20 > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via = geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> Igor and I have been discussing pcb geometry kernel design, I'm ccing = the >> list in case anyone has strong opinions. >>=20 >> [snip] >>=20 >> Question is: should a big geometry refactoring fix old bugs or >> questionalbe numeric conversions or just do the same thing with >> different code org? >>=20 >> For all the time, I assumed the first. >>=20 >>=20 >> I agree, but we may have different ideas of what the fix would be. = If you >> want to stop using floating point entirely, it's a huge effort, and = ints >> won't do what you want either, you need rationals. If by fix you = mean >=20 > Although later part of the mail had a list like this, that doesn't = include rationals so I'll repeat it for those who didn't have the chance = to follow our conversation. The options I currently see: >=20 > 1. go for maximal precision, be theoretically/mathematically correct = in all situations, no rounding ever: rationals. There=92s a catch, though. You can have rational translations or = rational rotations, but not both. If you base your allowed rotations on = the angles in triangles whose sides are Pythagorean triples you can = represent them with rational rotation matrices. However, neat rational = fractions of a right angle don=92t have associated Pythagorean triples = (Euclid famously showed this for 45 degrees). I might try the Pythagorean route if I was doing this, but maybe more = because it looks interesting rather than for practicality. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ jpd AT noqsi DOT com --Apple-Mail=_83C1D5C9-E774-496A-B3A6-7D3D61CF3A1E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWjQH3AAoJEF1Aj/0UKykRvnMP/1gSeH9FyJVmMdzguWVX48Pf VVKlLCXYl5YOu56t76TIKECBsQ6vNZGRb140YE9rVdfNaCFS3gCUUUgbtqrGBN6s rcFo7ZFkqgVViD3akD4YOcjwHebamp3KT1TWCD1LcFLvrbU0B+5LrwUBJIivkZKl FLlmbnvuiM0OAGlbSoird2/d/mogxsLRlpB5T66oYOo0KHqGJxm7DVVieHTFthCl xLezKdkXCs5kyk1ywRtI2ullg1bzHCe+98D+A9kuJxEd+t1Wjc11lFBoxBAljv96 8c45pPsV1sbe3pinstNFQiuRHda3u7WdOwpidaudzNMJlJ7svKaT5+LNEdoZzSzZ 0MVLLjk1kQhbvIrD0YiJ/LHGUdgpBtZO6LjVj5wZtBwsQD+ZDVxhXcWK2aPE/fuf fSX4tcLJOwXoL4V4cSIbj2XGOHF0yf0Yo8EpLMGc0VSBoqE9BMA3PQXe8nn6Ouc0 9SxTFfIgMSj9DyQHCn06vK0vaI+ZHG1qaYEVOKVsjEaMer8JPfHrTQCfGDzwev2B NhBq/zge7TDAsldHcFhdw7CrVsxIc+urSHeRWWqFrh3AF/sEp5Pgb+OgNHGaiP0c c/73B0EebxlC+it/vjGaGKZNupMdl5kT6TY0Es/64tgWyoQgglJToNQjZ+MDT41x LiGnXZYB8ewdzaj6LSKq =jqI+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_83C1D5C9-E774-496A-B3A6-7D3D61CF3A1E--