On 31 Jan 2002 11:32:59 +0600, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be better to simply modify the behaviour of "Move"
> instead of adding new command? I.e., use the Alt/Meta modifier
> interactively to switch off snapping/edgeresistance? (Shift and Ctrl are
> already used for
On 31 Jan 2002 11:32:59 +0600, Dmitry Yu. Bolkhovityanov wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it be better to simply modify the behaviour of "Move"
> instead of adding new command? I.e., use the Alt/Meta modifier
> interactively to switch off snapping/edgeresistance? (Shift and Ctrl are
> already used for
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2002 13:56:24 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:59:11AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > > I want to add an option to interactive Move, so snap is ignored.
> > >
> > > What do you think is a preferable syntax
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 02:09:08PM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> On 30 Jan 2002 13:56:24 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:59:11AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > > I want to add an option to interactive Move, so snap is ignored.
> > >
> > > What do you think is
On 30 Jan 2002 13:56:24 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:59:11AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> > I want to add an option to interactive Move, so snap is ignored.
> >
> > What do you think is a preferable syntax approach?
> > I may think about 2 possible solutions.
> >
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:59:11AM +, Mikhael Goikhman wrote:
> I want to add an option to interactive Move, so snap is ignored.
>
> What do you think is a preferable syntax approach?
> I may think about 2 possible solutions.
>
> 1) New command UnconstrainedMove with the same arguments as Mov
