On 6/10/2014 12:41 PM, Maciej Sumiński wrote: > On 06/10/2014 06:02 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >>>> The attached patch will give you an idea of proposed changes. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Orson >>> >>> We can kill two birds with one stone here. >>> >>> I like your changes, but they are insufficient to preserve the >>> current behaviour. With a >>> little bit of work we can accomplish a couple of useful things. >>> >>> I think we need to save that footprint in the PROJECT. Maybe put it >>> there upon wxFrame >>> destruction, and go get it upon wxFrame creation. That makes it >>> project specific. >>> >>> I plan on renaming the PROJECT::RPath() infrastructure to RString(). >>> That is it will hold >>> wxStrings instead of the goofy RETAINED_PATH. What is now >>> RETAINED_PATH can also go into >>> the RString() holder. enum RETPATH_T becomes RETSTRING_T. >> >> : >> >>> I can do the RString() change in the next half day, and it's >>> something I intended to do >>> anyways. >>> >>> Orson, this set of changes had to happen anyways as we moved to >>> multiple open projects, so >>> I welcome your help and cooperation. >> >> I committed class PROJECT::GetRString() and SetRString() in rev. 4934, >> paving the way for >> saving the MODULE in a session and project specific location and >> retaining the current UI >> behaviour, while clearing some of the clutter in the path of multiple >> open projects. > > Hi Dick, > > I agree with Lorenzo and Tom - I prefer the module editor to start > either empty or with a footprint loaded from library or board, without > storing anything inside. How often does it happen to you to make use of > the feature? I guess the module editor is primarily invoked to either > modify a specific footprint from a board/library or to create a new one. > However, I strongly believe we need to cooperate. Sometimes it leads to > a compromise, but the final decision is particularly crucial if other > main developers agree on the subject. Wayne, Jean-Pierre - I am willing > to hear your opinion on the topic. > Given everyone shares the view, then having a choice between adding more > static fields to the module editor or the above solution, I pick your > proposal. Thank you for the advices and the groundwork that will > definitely ease the task. > > Regards, > Orson >
The current behavior is fine in the context of being launched from Pcbnew when editing a board and/or project libraries. That being said, there are times when it would be useful to be able to edit footprint libraries outside the the context of a project. In other words, have the option to use the footprint editor as a stand alone application. I don't know if that is possible given the current design or not. I have not had time to look at the Kiway changes in any detail. Wayne _______________________________________________ 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