kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Chris Pavlina <pavlina.chris@xxxxxxxxx>]

Crap, mis-sent this on my phone.

> On Jul 31, 2016 2:06 AM, "Lorenzo Marcantonio" <l.marcantonio@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Il Dom, 31 Luglio 2016 1:22, Chris Pavlina ha scritto:
> >
> > > - Why both 'polyline' and 'line'? Surely eeschema isn't going to get
> > > tired of writing 'poly' and decide to start abbreviating it? Can't we
> > > remove one?
> >
> > IIRC at schematic level there are only lines, in components there are
only
> > polylines
>
> Right, that makes them redundant. A line can just be a two point polyline.
>
> >
> > > - Arcs have redundant information, we only need either (radius, start
> > > angle, end angle, center), or (start point, end point, center). I
suggest
> > > sticking to the former and dropping the start/end points.
> >
> > Beware of rounding; look back in the list, it was discussed
> >
> > > - Can we consider adding power ports as a type of label rather than
> > > component, so we don't have to maintain libraries of every possible
rail
> > > name anymore? I'd happily contribute to the implementation - I have
an old
> > > feature branch where I did exactly that, it worked really well :)
> >
> > As a label they wouldn't work since there are different symbols for
power
> > ports... maybe something to parametrize the symbol. I find the current
> > approach satisfying, anyway.
>
> I had a nice solution for this, may post separately about it later as I
put a lot of work and thought into it. I had a fully working feature branch
months ago as a POC that got a bit out of hand :D
>
> >
> > > - There's a vague comment that fonts aren't supported yet but may be
in
> > > the future. We should specify *now* how upcoming pre-font versions of
kicad
> > > should handle future files that have been saved using fonts, and make
sure
> > > they actually can.
> >
> > Optional form in the structure, no font is the default font; and forward
> > compatibility is by design not supported; you'll have to update kicad
>
> I like forward compatibility where it's simple, though I don't demand it.
>
> >
> > >
> > > - It looks like the new format may allow an arbitrary number of
> > > "alternates", not just the one "De Morgan equivalent" that we allow
> > > now. Is this true? I'd love that.
> >
> > That was my personal request:P especially for op-amps (swapping + and -
> > depending on the topology) or some multi function IC (silly example:
> > different configurations of the 555 lend to different pinout layout)
> >
> > > - Can we ditch 'keywords'? It's not useful anymore, the new component
> > > search doesn't use it and does a fine job of sifting through tokens in
> > > descriptions.
> >
> > Are keyword supported in search anyway? No idea, I don't use them but
I'm
> > opposed in principle to removing features
>
> It's not a removal, it's a replacement. Keywords are what was used for a
decent search back when the actual component selector was primitive. Now
they are obsolete.
>
> >
> > --
> > Lorenzo Marcantonio
> >
> >