Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:08:59 -0400
From: "Stephen C. Menasian (menasian AT ptd DOT net) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Thank you - some requests and an offer
Message-ID: <20210707120859.2458a130@queeg>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2107071635290.13116@nimbus>
References: <20210707101437 DOT 2c7c63a6 AT queeg>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2107071635290 DOT 13116 AT nimbus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Roland,

Thanks for the info. I'll make the change in my source.

As far as my workflow is concerned, I probably just got used to the old
way gschem behaved. Sometimes gschem reconnects nets wrong when I move a
selected group of parts. To recover from this, I select the region to be
moved and copy it to a blank place. Then, I make the move and can refer
to the copy to see if I need to clean up any misconnections. This is
probably related to the fact that I try to cram as much of the circuit as
possible into one schematic and things end up very dense.

Note that I am NOT modern. I don't do conventional PCBs unless something
is going into production and, in that case, the PCB work has always been
done by another organization. Most of my work is small runs done in
point-to-point wiring. I have never used the gEDA PCB tools since, when I
was at Bell Labs (I'm retired now), the production boards were done,
using my schematics, by another organization. Back then, PCBs involved
chemicals which I didn't want to get involved with at home and I always
found point-to-point boards easier to debug and modify. The only PCBs I
make now are for surface mount RF circuits and I cut between the traces
using a milling machine!!.

Stephen 

On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:51:21 +0200 (CEST)
Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
> 
> it's always good to hear people are happy with gEDA.  Being on this 
> mailing list, I usually only hear about things that don't work; your
> mail is a welcome exception. :-)
> 
> 
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021, Stephen C. Menasian (menasian AT ptd DOT net) [via 
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> > The selection remained with the originally selected part(s) after the 
> > copy and the new copy was not selected. The new gschem transfers the 
> > selection to the copy when it is placed.  
> 
> I changed it this way because it's how most programs behave these days:
> 
> > http://git.geda-project.org/geda-gaf/commit/?id=c1d796ce  
> 
> You can undo this by going to line 148 of gschem/src/x_event.c:
> 
>      case (PASTEMODE)  : o_place_end(w_current, w_x, w_y, FALSE, TRUE,
> 
> and replacing TRUE with FALSE:
> 
>      case (PASTEMODE)  : o_place_end(w_current, w_x, w_y, FALSE, FALSE,
> 
> Just out of curiosity: how does your workflow look like, so you prefer
> the copied object to stay selected?
> 
> 
> > I have written a C program which I call "geda_parts". […] if there is 
> > any interest, I can post the source once it is stable.  
> 
> Sure, go ahead!  There's no need to wait until it is stable.
> 
> Roland