kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/10/2012 11:55 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 4/10/2012 11:40 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>> On 8 April 2012 13:14, Edwin van den Oetelaar
>> <oetelaar.automatisering@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Edwin van den Oetelaar <oetelaar.automatisering@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM
>>> Subject: remarks about the internal nanometer resolution
>>> To: KiCad Developers <kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>> First of, I have not followed the discussion about the NanoMeter.
>>> I do have some remarks.
>>> >From an engineering standpoint the NanoMeter makes little sense to me.
>>> If the smallest item represented is a nano-meter, in a 32 bit integer
>>> this means the largest board can be only 2.14 meters in size. (-/+ of
>>> the origin)
>>> >From my viewpoint this is not enough. (I know of CNC machines much
>>> larger than 2 meters)
>> But +/- 2.15m is ~ 4.3m
>>
>> I don't see any point in changing anything that has already been done
>> in order to support a PCB larger than 4 metres. The patch would simply
>> be to move coordinates to a 64-bit int anyway, so it would not be too
>> difficult should someone come along with this as a requirement.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Brian.
> On 64-bit builds, integers are 64 bits so it becomes meaningless at that
> point. 

sizeof( int ) on a 64 bit machine is 4 AFAIR.

More importantly, who should pay for it.  Us?

Or the guy with the 13 foot board?

I don't want to pay for it.  Oops, there just went $13 dollars of my time.

Maybe we should charge by the foot?  No, don't leave me in charge.