On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:34:54AM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote: > > generally use it. From the comments in the code (which I gather you > wrote), I thought it implied that the rectangle poly requirement was due > to the via-rats code using IsPointInBox.
No, if you look at the history you'll see that the tests in GatherSubnets predated my comment by quite a bit. My comment was just added to indicate that I had cheaped out on the point-in-box test which you'd want to reconsider if you changed the GatherSubnets code. Testing IsPointInPolygonNoHoles is not exactly equivalent to IsPointInBox but it is in most cases. You'd have to cut a whole corner or side off of a polygon in order to see a difference in behavior. > If there is some limitation in the auto-router's understanding of > Polygons which means they are treated as boxes, then perhaps I need to > take another look. (Any ideas where to start prodding, or how to test > that?) It probably is. I don't know anything about the autorouter (and I never use it). -- Ben Jackson AD7GD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ben.com/ _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
