On 04/10/2012 11:55 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: > 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.
sizeof( int ) on a 64 bit machine is 4 AFAIR. More importantly, who should pay for it. Us? Or the guy with the 13 foot board? I don't want to pay for it. Oops, there just went $13 dollars of my time. Maybe we should charge by the foot? No, don't leave me in charge. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
