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).
