On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 07:43:30AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Attach a bad board file if you want your code review, the sky is falling, C
> programmer mentality, bug report, to be perceived as anything but bullshit.
Your grammar fails me, or, better I fail to understand you. Maybe my
english
On Apr 29, 2013 4:21 AM, "Lorenzo Marcantonio"
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02:58AM +0200, jp charras wrote:
> > In new code, orientations are (slowly) moved from int to double. to
> > allow a better resolution than 0.1 degree, *in the future*.
> >
> > If the decision to allow more than 0
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:02:58AM +0200, jp charras wrote:
> In new code, orientations are (slowly) moved from int to double. to
> allow a better resolution than 0.1 degree, *in the future*.
>
> If the decision to allow more than 0.1 degree is taken, dialogs *and
> documentation* need to be updat
Le 29/04/2013 10:39, Lorenzo Marcantonio a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 02:56:47AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
Please state the file and line number please.
OK, one example:
In PCB_BASE_FRAME::GlobalChange_PadSettings (pcbnew/globaleditpad.cpp)
on line 232 pad_orient is computed from the
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 02:56:47AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Please state the file and line number please.
OK, one example:
In PCB_BASE_FRAME::GlobalChange_PadSettings (pcbnew/globaleditpad.cpp)
on line 232 pad_orient is computed from the pad orientation and the
module orientation. pad_ori
On 04/29/2013 02:40 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 01:32:40AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> Bullshit. just call the interface with the right argument.
Please state the file and line number please.
The rest is bullshit.
>
> Strange for someone that just a few days a
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 01:32:40AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Bullshit. just call the interface with the right argument.
Strange for someone that just a few days ago lamented for 'too many
bugs' in kicad...
Sure. *Call* the interface with the *right* argument. The keyword is
*call*. It's no
On 04/28/2013 11:58 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:40:07PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> Client code is simply that which makes calls to an interface, a class user.
>>
>> I don't see a problem if an interface is richer than its clients need.
>
> Since you changed th
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:40:07PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Client code is simply that which makes calls to an interface, a class user.
>
> I don't see a problem if an interface is richer than its clients need.
Since you changed the specifications (an angle can be arbitrary) the
client nee
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 11:19:02PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Can you name the class where setangle, the interface, cannot successfully
> set an angle of any degree, without talking about client code?
No, I didn't look for it, but the compiler flagged that (innocuous) swap
so there *could* be
On Apr 28, 2013 11:19 PM, "Dick Hollenbeck" wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2013 11:09 PM, "Lorenzo Marcantonio" <
l.marcanto...@logossrl.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 03:50:09PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> > > The interface is correct. Setting any angle is desired. The
implentation
>
On Apr 28, 2013 11:09 PM, "Lorenzo Marcantonio"
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 03:50:09PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> > The interface is correct. Setting any angle is desired. The
implentation
> > is insufficient in this case. The black box is broken and needs
> > embellishment.
> >
> >
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 03:50:09PM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> The interface is correct. Setting any angle is desired. The implentation
> is insufficient in this case. The black box is broken and needs
> embellishment.
>
> I chose what the dog is to do when we started the plugins. The tail
.
On Apr 28, 2013 8:31 AM, "Lorenzo Marcantonio"
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 08:09:29AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> > GenDate() is not my function, so I could only offer an opinion but no
protective mandate.
> > I am neutral, and to formulate a strong opinion would require a study
of i
On 4/28/2013 7:41 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
I was comparing my tree with the master one. These are some changes
I did in times and I would like what do you think of these
- GenDate() at the moment uses a fixed format (more or less the european
one), with the months hardcoded to the short
Le 28/04/2013 13:41, Lorenzo Marcantonio a écrit :
I was comparing my tree with the master one. These are some changes
I did in times and I would like what do you think of these
- GenDate() at the moment uses a fixed format (more or less the european
one), with the months hardcoded to the sho
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 03:33:32PM +0200, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> AFAIK mostly reports and sheet border. I'll investigate.
Correction, it's *only* for the title block. The default ("%x")
formatting (for the italian locale, at least) is numeric only
(like dd/mm/) so it's *very* easy to int
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 08:09:29AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> GenDate() is not my function, so I could only offer an opinion but no
> protective mandate.
> I am neutral, and to formulate a strong opinion would require a study of its
> usage, for
> which I do not have the time.
AFAIK mostly
On 04/28/2013 06:41 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
> I was comparing my tree with the master one. These are some changes
> I did in times and I would like what do you think of these
>
> - GenDate() at the moment uses a fixed format (more or less the european
> one), with the months hardcoded to
I was comparing my tree with the master one. These are some changes
I did in times and I would like what do you think of these
- GenDate() at the moment uses a fixed format (more or less the european
one), with the months hardcoded to the short english names.
Wouldn't it be better to use the
20 matches
Mail list logo
