On 04/04/2011 10:40 AM, Chris Giorgi wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 06:59, Dick Hollenbeck <[email protected]> wrote: > -snip- >> If anything looks long winded (overly verbose), the next couple of weeks >> would be a good time to make those 11th hour changes. >> >> 'line_width' as a keyword name, seems a bit long to me, but its a minor deal. >> >> Overall, hopefully it still looks sweet. > > Hi Dick, > The grammar is looking great! I have a few suggestions regarding line > styling, including obviating the line_width keyword: Create a 'stroke' > property for the stroke of a figure, and within 'stroke' define a > 'weight' attribute to replace the 'line_width' property. The 'stroke' > property could also include a 'style' attribute , allowing for dashed > lines, and perhaps even an 'endpoint' attribute, allowing for arrow > heads and tails. This would be consistent with most vector graphics > packages, and I would consider it highly desirable functionality in > some circumstances. > > (rectangle (start -5 -14) (end 5 14) (stroke (weight 1.2) (style > (dashed 0.5 0.1)) (fill none)) > > Draw an unfilled rectangle from (-5,-14) to (5,14) using a pen weight > of 1.2, with dashes 0.5 long with 0.1 spaces between each dash. > > > (line (start 1 3) (end 2 5) (stroke (weight 1.0) (style solid) > (endpoint tail head))) > > Draw a solid line segment from (1,3) to (2,5) using a pen weight of > 1.2. Decorate the start with a standard tail shape and the end with a > standard head shape. > > A few open questions: > One issue that I'm unclear about is what the units for the > 'line_width' were, and what they should be for 'stroke(weight)'.
(line_width WIDTH) has WIDTH as a "percent of a logical unit". So 1.5 would be 1.5 percent of a logical unit, or .015 logical units. A logical unit is defined as the standard distance between two neighboring schematic pins, a dimensionless number. See the *.odt file in /new for more info. This grammar is specific to schematic parts. I won't talk about eventual PCBNEW requirements at this time. My concern about line_width was lack of brevity, so now instead of (line_width 1.2) we now have (stroke (weight 1.2) (style (dashed 0.5 0.1)) We are going in the wrong direction regarding brevity :) Maybe we can have defaults, and get rid of the weight wrapper: (stroke 1.2) which is now shorter than: (line_width 1.2) This is an improvement that gives us a container element in which to add in the fancy lines when not using default solid line: (stroke 1.2 (style (dashed 0.5 0.1)) > Another question is should the 'fill' of a polygon outline in fact be > transparent, or should it be nonexistent? Should transparency be an > alpha channel so we can stack things, and if so, how is the stacking > order determined? What does it mean for text to have the '(fill > filled)' attribute? Would you be adverse to allowing for non-solid > fills, perhaps hatching similar to that in AutoCAD? Wayne or others can comment on the other suggestions. I don't see us stacking things in a 2D schematic editor. I would not be opposed to showing it in 3D however, so long as we can see each side of the cylindrical wires. I'll bring the wire nuts. > Looks SWEET so far! Thanks. Dick > Take care, > ~~~Chris Giorgi~~~ > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
