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=seznam.cz; s=beta; t=1442482775; bh=tmLOE+jWqeIc1Zh6vTH/SKLLVjO1LVwd4Y3l+wKdeNQ=; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-Id:References:Mime-Version: X-Mailer:Content-Type; b=kH6dNHH/qUJyCUeF/1DXSott4bYA3vuFrLu5XwwMqzBqyyi8jIE0j4skcKtE0NvYw jthd6aPZxaVq9eW4H8bUa1m75eCPx6HfI5BUD2hHwbILr1+YVxTeepGL7SxeVBrpQb 1Q2gUnWb5fu2iFklt5zAhOC6xYlhr3NBekyfb8lQ= From: "Vaclav Peroutka (vaclavpe AT seznam DOT cz) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Fwd: gaf improvement - moving of components Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:39:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: References:

Mime-Version: 1.0 (szn-mime-2.0.6) X-Mailer: szn-ebox-4.4.286 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_1a1076b449ca8b43475956fc=a0d63940-3c0a-52d5-a00a-90c0d292bfc5_=" Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com --=_1a1076b449ca8b43475956fc=a0d63940-3c0a-52d5-a00a-90c0d292bfc5_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >=0A= "> Hello,=0A= >=0A= > as in another thread there is discussion about gaf state, I have one ide= a =0A= to=0A= > gaf improvement regarding movement of already connected components. I do= =0A= not=0A= > know how it is hard to implement it in the current gaf. But as first= =0A= > iteration=0A= > it can be enough if pin is taken as net with length of zero. And then th= is=0A= > net is extended in the direction of movement.=0A= >=0A= > For example, the bottom left result can be done by moving R1 left, then= =0A= > down,=0A= > then right. For me this is still simpler than to remove the net, move th= e=0A= > component and then add the new net again.=0A= >=0A= > Second iteration is check if currently extending net does not overlay= =0A= > another=0A= > item on the board ( component, net, text etc) and automatic splitting ne= ts=0A= > in=0A= > the middle or near other items.=0A= >=0A= > What do you think about it ?=0A= =0A= Sorry to say this but I don't think you are supposed to join nets like= =0A= that. I said this back then. Other people cited nondescript technical= =0A= reasons.=0A= =0A= http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.cad.geda.user/40275=0A= =0A= "=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= You are actually right that people answered. I already forgot it. =0A= Nevertheless, the way Cedarlogic behaves is in my opinion=C2=A0 better tha= n =0A= implementation in gschem. I do not know anything about internals of neithe= r =0A= software. But from user's (my) point of view this is the way how I can = =0A= increase my productivity. I believe that other users can have other =0A= opinions...=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= Shall I put this feature request to launchpad or not necessarilly ?=0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= ""= --=_1a1076b449ca8b43475956fc=a0d63940-3c0a-52d5-a00a-90c0d292bfc5_= Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >

> Hello,
>
> as in another = thread there is discussion about gaf state, I have one idea to
> gaf= improvement regarding movement of already connected components. I do not<= br>> know how it is hard to implement it in the current gaf. But as fir= st
> iteration
> it can be enough if pin is taken as net with = length of zero. And then this
> net is extended in the direction of = movement.
>
> For example, the bottom left result can be done = by moving R1 left, then
> down,
> then right. For me this is s= till simpler than to remove the net, move the
> component and then a= dd the new net again.
>
> Second iteration is check if current= ly extending net does not overlay
> another
> item on the boar= d ( component, net, text etc) and automatic splitting nets
> in
&= gt; the middle or near other items.
>
> What do you think abou= t it ?

Sorry to say this but I don't think you are supposed to join= nets like
that. I said this back then. Other people cited nondescript = technical
reasons.

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.cad.geda= .user/40275

You are actually right that = people answered. I already forgot it. Nevertheless, the way Cedarlogic beh= aves is in my opinion better than implementation in gschem. I do not= know anything about internals of neither software. But from user's (my) p= oint of view this is the way how I can increase my productivity. I believe= that other users can have other opinions...

Shall I put = this feature request to launchpad or not necessarilly ?

= --=_1a1076b449ca8b43475956fc=a0d63940-3c0a-52d5-a00a-90c0d292bfc5_=--