On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:29:38AM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: > Why would you need to change the file unless you were planning to put > the date generation option in the file? I'm not sure this setting > really belongs in the board file. It strikes me as application level > setting. If you want to add it to the board file, add a new token or > tokens to TITLE_BLOCK::Format(). Something like (edit-date auto/manual) > would do the the trick. You will have to add code to read it correctly
I'm not sure I got what are you meaning... at the moment my plan is: - Comment out the automatic date update - Reenable the date writing to the board - Add an edit box to fill the date by hand - Profit:D In contrast to *now* it doesn't change a thing if you don't fill out the box (backward compatibility:D). If you want to fill out the date is kept, and saved, and shown, plotted whatever. If you (user) want automatic date update you (user) *wait* until we decide how to do the thing. I feel that manual date entry is better than no date at all. As for the 'automatic date set' I agree that it should be an application level option. In preference/general where there is 'Magnetic Pads: Never/When/Always', 'Magnetic Tracks: Never/When/Always' we could add 'Automatic Date Update: Never/When ???/Always when saving', for example. The ??? is due further discussion (i.e. deciding when the board is 'modified'). > > from the file in PCB_PARSER::parseTITLE_BLOCK(). You'll also need to be > prepared to answer the bug reports that will happen when someone using > an older rev attempts to open the file with the new setting. Such is > the glamorous life of an open source developer. ;) The title block calls are already there, just commented. The bug report is actually from a colleague of mine who noticed the missing date from the printout, so it's a preemptive strike :D BTW the life of the commercial software programmer can be even worse (like inheriting some old S/390 assembly routine to talk in EBCDIC to an ASCII talking ATM machine using the awful SNA APPC calls). Yet I feel that IBM assembly is more elegant than java :D -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
