On Sun, 2011-01-23 at 23:52 +0900, Andrzej wrote: > Krzysztof, > > > I'd like to get opinions on the drawing of visual cues (endpoints) of > > pins. Curently: > > This may not be a suggestion you expected, but... how about making the > parser stricter and actually remove such shapes (and any other > zero-sized objects) before they make their way into libgeda? These > shapes violate the gEDA file format spec so if the tool is being > sloppy about checking their properties, we will end up with 2 specs - > one "official" and one "de facto" (particularly important for authors > of third-party tools, as they will have to reproduce all the > workarounds in libgeda). libgeda was recently patched to allow zero length pins. Please point me at where the documentation says this is invalid, and I'll file a bug about getting that changed. > Visual artifacts in rendered symbols are not the only problem. There > might also be other functions that depend on directionality of pins. I > vaguely recall that the pin direction is used by gschem for assisted > routing of nets in schematics (as a preferred direction of a net > connected to the pin). You are correct there, those driving the zero-length pins change should consider whether this is a problem or not, and if so - what do do about it! On cursory inspection, adding preferred net orientation could require a file-format bump to do flexibly. A heuristic could be imagined, but it won't be as easy to get right as it first sounds. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user