On Sun, 5 May 2002, Arne Christian Hårseth wrote:
> Lars wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 May 2002, Arne Christian Hårseth wrote:
>> > ...
>> > Why is there no connection point at the end of a simple line?
>
> This wasn't answered?
It's a good question. I've wanted it a couple times. I'm not sure what
would happen if you connect two lines with connectionpoints at the end to
each other (which is the only reason to have that connectionpoint) -- we
might see infinite loops and stuff.
>>
> I am afraid I don't follow you. Anyway I don't understand why there
> should be a difference in the connection handling depending on wether the
> line is horizontal or vertical?
Are you referring to the zigzag-line that prefers to have its arrows
vertical? Otherwise I don't see any difference.
>> > If you have turned on "snap to grid" and draw a line from a an objects
>> > connection point which happens to be outside the grid then you can not
>> > make the line horizontal (or vertical) without turning off "snap to
>> > grid" or change the grid resolution. I find this to be to much
>> > work. Could it be an idea to allow the line (or an object) to snap to
>> > the extention of the connection point?
>>
>> Yes, there are some things that could be done, like Set Horizontal/Set
>> Vertical.
>
> I think automatically using a hidden snapline from a connection point as
> I suggested would be easier.
I see what you mean. That might be a good idea. Better than extra menu
points. But how often do you want to have a horizontal line without it
connecting to something? Now if there was the possibility of making a
connection anywhere on an element, that would be useful, but as it is now,
it would be of limited use.
-Lars
--
Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause)| Hårdgrim of Numenor
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I |----------------------------
will defend to the death your right to say it." | Where are we going, and
--Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire | what's with the handbasket?