kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[jean-pierre charras <jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 11/05/2012 11:27, Brian Sidebotham a écrit :
> On 10 May 2012 20:11, jean-pierre charras<jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > Le 10/05/2012 11:10, Brian Sidebotham a écrit :
> >
> > > On 10 May 2012 09:50, Lorenzo Marcantonio<l.marcantonio@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >   wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 09:24:36AM +0100, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > At some point the bus width changed from an eeschema option to a
> > > > > compile-time setting (BUS_WIDTH_EXPAND). I would much prefer to have
> > > > > this as a runtime option instead of a multiplier of the default line
> > > > > width - because the bus width is not wide enough for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be accepted if I made this an option again?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When was it an option? It's more than a year I've hardcoded the new
> > > > expansion in my code :P
> > >
> > >
> > > It was a long time ago that it was an option! (I don't use buses very
> > > often! ;)
> > >
> > > Best Regards, Brian.
> >
> >
> > Are you sure ?
> > I did not remember this option.
>
> Hi Jean-Pierre,
>
> I cannot find a reference to it in my old (cica. 2008) PCB .pro files,
> but I always thought the bus was much thicker. It may be that the line
> thickness was also thicker back then, or the multiplier was different?

"Multiplier was different" is a possibility. I do not remember.

> As it stands, when I print a schematic I cannot tell the difference
> between a bus connection and a wire easily. So if it's okay with
> everyone, I'll convert it to a preference rather than a compile-time
> option?

No objection.
> The next question would be, is it an Eeschema option or a project option?

I have no strong opinion about this.
You can start by an Eeschema option (It does not change anything in file format).

> Best Regards, Brian.


--
Jean-Pierre CHARRAS