kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Lorenzo Marcantonio <l.marcantonio@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:11:51PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:

> No, I don't agree, since it is behind an interface and only accessors use it.

My question could be rephrased as: there is a need to put colours in the board
interface?

> Its the guy in the stair well walking on his hands, allowed to do weird stuff as long as
> it is not public.

Sorry but I don't get this...

> Because we are talking about supporting more than one board in the editor *concurrently*
> in the foreseeable future, we have to be careful about what is done here on improving the
> color "interface".

Then by design it's correct to have it as a board member; I completely
agree (see also my other post).

The original question was about the design, to decide if that
implementation should be kept or not; with this design the
implementation io OK.

BTW why simply don't have two pcbnew instances with different boards
loaded? once you fix the clipboard and crossprobing code I think it
should be enough.

> I think the color interface should be BOARD specific, because when you send someone a
> complex board, their favorite KiCad colors, although they may like them because they may
> be reminded of their third grade girlfriend, these colors may simply not be able to show
> all the features of the board in the same way that you outfitted the board with colors
> before you sent it.

I don't agree with that, colors should be a user preference only, since
they are symbolic. I'm used to blue/red copper layers and I simply can't
identify features in red/green boards. Or simply the colours hurts my
eyes:D

An example of colours not showing the features would be useful (I can't
think of any, at the moment).

-- 
Lorenzo Marcantonio
Logos Srl