On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 10:31 -0700, Ben Jackson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 02:10:25PM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote: > > > > What isn't clear to me, is why so much bloat? (50-101). Why in other > > cases, is the bloat 50, or 101? > > The purpose is to avoid numerical errors in the polygon code. The > polygon (un)subtract does not work very well with "exactly touching" > points and "exactly overlapping" lines such as you are likely to > produce using no bloat. The exact value should not be critical.
So, a bloat of 1 should be enough, or 10 to be safer? I'm inclined to believe the search for objects to re-clear should also be bloated away from the rectangle which was unsubtracted? > As for the other problem, I agree with your assessment that the bounding > box is probably wrong, which likely has other bad consequences. Just working on a fix for that now. This would be much simpler if pads just used the polygon code. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
