On 4/10/2012 11:40 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote: > On 8 April 2012 13:14, Edwin van den Oetelaar > <[email protected]> wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Edwin van den Oetelaar <[email protected]> >> Date: Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM >> Subject: remarks about the internal nanometer resolution >> To: KiCad Developers <[email protected]> >> >> >> First of, I have not followed the discussion about the NanoMeter. >> I do have some remarks. >> >From an engineering standpoint the NanoMeter makes little sense to me. >> If the smallest item represented is a nano-meter, in a 32 bit integer >> this means the largest board can be only 2.14 meters in size. (-/+ of >> the origin) >> >From my viewpoint this is not enough. (I know of CNC machines much >> larger than 2 meters) > > But +/- 2.15m is ~ 4.3m > > I don't see any point in changing anything that has already been done > in order to support a PCB larger than 4 metres. The patch would simply > be to move coordinates to a 64-bit int anyway, so it would not be too > difficult should someone come along with this as a requirement. > > Best Regards, > > Brian.
On 64-bit builds, integers are 64 bits so it becomes meaningless at that point. Even on 32 bit hardware, there are much more pressing issues that need to be resolved. Wayne _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
