kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sure I've commented on this before but I will reiterate.  I've never 
liked compiling base units for each application.  It seems to me that 
there should be a base units object that serves at the base class for 
the application specific units objects which means no more compiling the 
same file 3 times to produce the correct scalars.  If that is the end 
goal of these changes, I'm all for it.  If not, I would prefer that this 
be part of the redesign.  This should allow us to put the base units in 
a kicad shared object.

Cheers,

Wayne

On 11/21/18 11:27 AM, Mark Roszko wrote:
> Can't one just call it coordinate and child class length from it for 
> giggles? So at least you get both names and use the most fitting one 
> depending on application? Like in the case of points, you use coordinates.
>
>
>  > - "no operator+(point, screen_point)" is immediately understandable
> I agree
>
>
>   >- "no operator+(vector2d<coordinate>, vector2d<screen_coordinate>)" is
>  >still graspable
>
>   >- "no operator+(vector2d<coord<1,0>>, vector2d<coord<0,1>>)" borders on
>  >confusing
>
> That's reasonable but not what I'm arguing for?
>
>  >The latter would allow representing the zoom factor as coord<1,-1>,
>
> This is where you lose me.
>
> "Coordinate' means number on a single axis, this is the same as your 
> "length".
>
> But your use of coord<1,-1> is a "ordered pair" and not a coordinate.
>
> I think the issue here is semantics ;)
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:12 AM Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@xxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:Simon.Richter@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On 21.11.2018 16:24, Mark Roszko wrote:
>
>      > Shouldn't the "length" class be called "coordinate"?
>
>      > Otherwise reading point::point(length nx, length ny) as an
>     constructor
>      > is pretty weird.
>
>     Then I'd have to replicate the entire logic of "number + length unit"
>     for coordinates and sizes, which I thought I'd avoid and only have
>     "point", "vector" and possibly "size" as distinct types. With the
>     distinction between real-world and screen measurements, we'd be getting
>     close to "we need a class template" territory, but one of the minor
>     goals is to keep error messages readable:
>
>       - "no operator+(point, screen_point)" is immediately understandable
>       - "no operator+(vector2d<coordinate>, vector2d<screen_coordinate>)" is
>     still graspable
>       - "no operator+(vector2d<coord<1,0>>, vector2d<coord<0,1>>)"
>     borders on
>     confusing
>
>     The latter would allow representing the zoom factor as coord<1,-1>,
>     which would reduce the amount of code needed because we can have
>
>          template<int nm1, int px1, int nm2, int px2>
>          coord<nm1-nm2, px1-px2> operator/(coord<nm1, px1>, coord<nm2,
>     px2>);
>
>     and have that check units on the zoom factor, but three classes written
>     out would probably not be that bad either, and give us better
>     diagnostics.
>
>         Simon
>
>
>
> --
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp