On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 04:11:51PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > No, I don't agree, since it is behind an interface and only accessors use it.
My question could be rephrased as: there is a need to put colours in the board interface? > Its the guy in the stair well walking on his hands, allowed to do weird stuff > as long as > it is not public. Sorry but I don't get this... > Because we are talking about supporting more than one board in the editor > *concurrently* > in the foreseeable future, we have to be careful about what is done here on > improving the > color "interface". Then by design it's correct to have it as a board member; I completely agree (see also my other post). The original question was about the design, to decide if that implementation should be kept or not; with this design the implementation io OK. BTW why simply don't have two pcbnew instances with different boards loaded? once you fix the clipboard and crossprobing code I think it should be enough. > I think the color interface should be BOARD specific, because when you send > someone a > complex board, their favorite KiCad colors, although they may like them > because they may > be reminded of their third grade girlfriend, these colors may simply not be > able to show > all the features of the board in the same way that you outfitted the board > with colors > before you sent it. I don't agree with that, colors should be a user preference only, since they are symbolic. I'm used to blue/red copper layers and I simply can't identify features in red/green boards. Or simply the colours hurts my eyes:D An example of colours not showing the features would be useful (I can't think of any, at the moment). -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
