On 4/12/2016 2:34 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 07:58:05AM +1000, Cirilo Bernardo wrote: > >> a) ability to use "." or "," regardless of the language setting - assuming >> no sensible person ever enters a thousands separator in CAD software >> (I don't know any CAD software which accepts thousands separators). > > Already doing this :D > >> b) ability to specify a unit as a suffix: 0.001m, 1mm, 0.03937in, >> also 'mil' and for the Australians 'thou'. > > Already doind that, too :D > > IIRC it's a couple of function, not a validator-thingie, it was > literally years ago. But I suppose it's easily convertible. > >> People have also been asking to have angle suffixes: rad/deg/mrad > > Seriously... *what use* are radians in a pcb layout? The only thing that > comes to mind are arc stub for impedance match... > >> but in my opinion such a thing would have to be implemented in >> a different validator - maybe an AngleFloatValidator vs a >> UnitFloatValidator - or else the validator will need to be able to >> change its behavior based on some kind of flag. > > Please please no flag. Two different functions/classes/whatever.
+1. I am a firm supporter of the KISS principal. > >> The current input text boxes in my opinion have a number of bugs: >> 1. you can put alphabetic characters anywhere >> 2. if the unit is not known or a mistake is made then the conversion >> result is "0" which is obviously wrong. In such a case the validator >> should prevent the user from changing the value at all and somehow >> signal the user of the mistake so the user can correct it. Naturally it >> is impossible to tell if there is a mistake with "m" vs "mm". > > OK, from memory, the current value conversion (as you said it's *not* a > validation) occurs at data transfer time, i.e. from variable to control > and back. It's a conversion since the variables are in internal units > (mils in eeschema and 10 nanos in pcbnew). That's probably one of the > reason for the tenth-degree input, there is no *conversion* pair for > them. > > If the idea is to move these feature in a while-type validation, I think > it's good (but be careful at the 'intermediate' stages while people is > editing the content). > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
