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=oknvdqq7l4gG+2rWdCKQLOc4uT9JufXavzvLtBx6moc=; b=JMUayVITLf9LTOncz4xn78vtztxV2Lh8T38GtS6aU/sMUAJdk44SLSQQ2w92tZCpNY uf1umzWLZkER/G7h6g0GGN3fj7cHuH0QYf11FSbfgJu+/AjwIO7UrxCc9zJ4S/Qsixp6 2DEuzqsIHZIBHMF+ClK+SJ88EsdSy7gyDOfLyHaBQ89bWHkNV3DVCjjpJai1ZRIxODH5 p/hTQ/koZrgmhM7f+jKHkm1eaUIBf0M/8l+hoLb8RjAaErl8yIBBIr7sriOKCY1RSKcM Mu9rlZlTx2ClacKVBbQ6VgtyLVEAix6UExvfj0qIK08aeKOKUpEiq+5T/c+8sS/pCkmm zPOw== X-Received: by 10.194.120.70 with SMTP id la6mr3152896wjb.110.1442178288468; Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:04:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 23:04:46 +0200 From: "Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] Apollon Message-Id: <20150913230446.580ef9269f52c0c73bd62971@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20150913140631 DOT 1da1b78d AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org> <201509131529 DOT t8DFTUVS022118 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201509131824 DOT t8DIOCBc028428 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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 Sun, 13 Sep 2015 13:31:57 -0600 John Doty wrote: > > On Sep 13, 2015, at 12:24 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > > >> If you do this right, you wind up with *exact* knowledge of every > >> point in the x/y Cartesian geometry. Sines and cosines of these > >> angles are rational numbers. No roundoff error. You can choose any > >> unit basis you want (I'd go with meters). > > > > I thought of this for arcs - define the endpoints and the radius, not > > the center and angles (there are other issues in this example, but > > still). You're limited to what snaps to your grid, but if your grid > > is nanometers that's a very small error. > > > > You do tend to go off-angle pretty quickly though, since so many > > angles result in irrational numbers. > > > > What I meant to say is that the rational number solution is gridless. It has a base unit, but you can have coordinates like 45634/1299709. It actually sound good if it could be implemented with a reasonable effort in practice.