kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[jp charras <jp.charras@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Le 16/02/2016 07:44, Mikael Arguedas a écrit :
> Hi Miguel,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. I can now appreciate the difference. In this
> case it's indeed more useful to have a minimum size that won't be 0.
> 
> Actually I thought these were 1nm steps. My intent was to have every
> courtyard size to be rounded to 0.1mm and thus land on a 0.05mm grid as
> specified in the KLC.
> Anyway I tested it on a couple of footprints and it seems to be giving the
> expected result.
> 
> Thanks for reviewing and for the explanation!

In fact the patch needs a bit of enhancement:
- It uses values given in internal units. this is not a good practice
if you want to use a value of 0.5 mm, use 0.5 mm. (like for all uthers
values)
The meaning of values just given as integer is always not easy to
understand.
- Because the rounding is subject to change, and used 6 times, only one
method called 6 times is more easy to change, and more easy to
understand for the reader.
- the KLC say 0.05 mm rounding. Why to use 0.1 mm? Leave 0.05 rounding
level.

Thanks for your interest at Kicad.

> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Miguel Angel Ajo Pelayo <
> majopela@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mikael,
>>
>>    Sorry, my comment is probably irrelevant,
>>
>>  sizex = (int(sizex/100000)+1)*100000
>>
>> vs
>>
>>    sizex = (int((sizex+(100000-1))/100000))*100000
>>
>>
>> for sizex of 0, on the first one you end up with 100000
>> while on the second you end up with 0
>>
>> and for sizex of 1, both render the same result.
>>
>> Anyway, given those are 10nm steps, you probably don’t care, and actually
>> you want to start by 1mm minimum,
>> right?, so your function would be more appropriate.
>>
>> Cheers :)
>>
>> On 14 Feb 2016, at 15:28, Mikael Arguedas <mikael.arguedas@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Miguel,
>>
>> The question may seem silly (sorry I'm an EE guy who doesnt know much
>> about computer science). How is your suggested implementation of ceil
>> better? Is it a matter of stability ? performance ?
>> They seem completely identical to me in terms of performance and result
>> but I'd really like to learn where I mistaken.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> MIkael
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Mikael Arguedas <
>> mikael.arguedas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>



-- 
Jean-Pierre CHARRAS