kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/3/2016 2:34 AM, Sergey A. Borshch wrote:
> On 03.08.2016 05:12, Werner Almesberger wrote:
>> Chris Pavlina wrote:
>>> Very good point about the start/end points. eeschema doesn't currently
>>> support that - it can't fill enclosed regions that are enclosed by
>>> multiple graphical objects - but this would ensure it could in the
>>> future with minimal changes. Okay - I'm for using start/end instead of
>>> angles, then. I'd still like to get rid of the redundant info, though.
>>
>> You can't entirely win this :-)
>>
>> If you use center, start, and end point, one could still diverge.
>>
>> In fped, I solved this as follows: I have center, start point
>> (defining radius and angle), and end point (defining angle).
>> No matter where the end point is, its distance from the center is
>> (and has to be) ignored.
> 
> How about two variants to define arcs:
> 1) Center point, start angle, end angle
> 2) start point, end point, radius.
> Both of them completely describe arcs, both of them has no diverge, both
> of them are usable in particular situation.
> 
This is what Chris was trying to clean up.  We current save both 1 & 2
for every arc.  Sounds like that wont be changing?