X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=IFD9elvhyNoA0/lXbQbBh3T6IoYbVwYgJMFce7yTt10=;
	b=c10SLgXrZGC+e5OgqGPRdlUKC7ygE8TK9QZnpsfa4iyMMMYgRgHSc8UoZ/6Wjg72Ej
	13mlcdJYFGhwbRwTgh/mXK+NfVlHJFpji2zGdSKZp1aIECIziDg+CrjPobAkfom3OlkH
	PGHaKScrL14o+lkBy4ZySmZRlj9gO1dUTjb43dG22PpHRGN31CeI8W1anZcAcNls70VY
	HbMPBqJX4NA5OL+TqnkwC8Ng60xT7aKLHzygsx9B/LNDkAzrkM0FLZqFP3UwE0g+tRUq
	syf1uDGCJEmC6+OCWZ874NQm5eLmmDYXrp8N2vr+FLInT9b6sqBhHyEC3zUA93DlublU
	8SWg==
X-Received:	by 10.28.147.129 with SMTP id v123mr38531296wmd.98.1448997364252;
	Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:16:04 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Tue, 1 Dec 2015 20:15:59 +0100
From:	"Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] PCB: clearouts in polygons slightly off, fix?
Message-Id:	<20151201201559.df10bda12d53ff7d8b55461e@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:	<201512011841.tB1IfDIJ018459@envy.delorie.com>
References:	<20151201124843 DOT GC24702 AT abax>
	<201512011841 DOT tB1IfDIJ018459 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version:	1.0
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

Yes for cases where the output is demonstrably "wrong" there is a problem hidden somewhere.

Approximation is more about needed accuracy, in real life accuracy is never perfect. If approximation start to add up for example each time an object is moved it is however a problem, I guess a grid more course than total approximation error could solve this.

Nicklas Karlsson



On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 13:41:13 -0500
DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> 
> My personal preference is that, for cases where the output is
> demonstrably "wrong", we should fix it.  In this particular case,
> we're producing incorrect gerbers (although only *slightly* incorrect,
> but if you're pushing the limits, that might be enough) and if
> correcting our mistake causes warnings for others, those are warnings
> they should have been getting all along anyway ;-)
> 
> One could argue that by approximating curves with lines we're "wrong"
> anyway, but then again, since the user has no control over how we do
> that, a minor tweak in how we do that should still be within our
> domain.

- Raw text -