At 10:58 AM 4/5/01 +0200, Joop Reekers wrote:

>In Schematic it is harmless to mirror a part and text is staying close to
>the part, unmirrored.
>That seems to be OK to me, because I don't want mirrored text in my circuit

That much is agreed. However, there is still a problem, a little different 
than that posed in this thread. If one places text in a symbol, when the 
symbol is rotated the effective text position changes, because the text is 
moved and rotated around its reference point, which is the lower left for 
horizontal text.

But with text in a symbol, for the text to remain in the same position, it 
must be moved and rotated about a center point, not a point at one end. 
Suppose I have a line on the left of some text, and that text is a + 
symbol. Like


When I rotate the symbol, this pattern does not become +|. Rather, we will 
see the + superimposed roughly on the line, because the reference point for 
the text is next to the line, and the text is written from left to right. 
When it is only + and - that are being used, a solution is to use lines and 
draw the symbols instead of using text. But sometimes one wants to place 
text in a symbol that behaves properly when rotated.

Because of the way that text primitives are stored in the database, to 
properly rotate text that is going to stay upright-reading, the reference 
point must be shifted to what was the relative position of the *end* of the 
text instead of remaining where the beginning was.

Obviously, this is not high on my wish list. But it is irritating when one 
tries to put text into parts that may be rotated.

It's been some time since I worked with this and I might have it all 
confused and don't have time to check....

Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To join or leave this list visit:
*                      - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
* Contact the list manager:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to