On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 14:29 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > This would be much simpler if pads just used the polygon code. > > Or if it were better object-oriented, and you could just let > everything do their own tasks? ;-)
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying there.. I was suggesting that supporting rotated pads would be easier if they were a sub-type of polygon (or used Polygons internally - just like pin thermals do). You're saying this is wrong? Ok - lets keep everything doing their own tasks - then rotated pads need support to compute bounding boxes in various cases (rounded, square ended, various mask types?). Horrible geometry, and it isn't just one set of geometry. One for every cap type (Round / Square). The DRC needs to know how to compute geometry against them, drawing code, bounding box code. Yes, this is the way I've fixed it in the patch which is just coming. Yes, I think it would be simpler to put support in for drawing, DRC'ing, computing bounding boxes of arbitrary polygons, then make pads use that. -- 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
