© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
Here is a real world problem with junctions without dots: https:/
Otherwise, I have taken time to think about this a bit more. It's still a difficult subject and I'm not sure you have understood all I have said or asked. Probably my main points now are:
1. Now there can be junctions without dots and dots without junctions. Both cases are bugs IMO. As I said in the forum discussion, " A junction and the visual dot should be so tightly coupled that there’s no one without the other." At least for automatic junctions.
2. If (and only if) existence and non-existence of junctions can be logically derived from wires (them crossing each other, and wires/enpoints overlapping), there should be no need for independent graphical junction items. Dots could be just visual indicators of deducted junctions. As far as I have understood, junctions CAN now be derived from wires. Junction dot doesn't create a junction where there is no junction implicitly. (If the manual tool creates a new junction, it does so by editing the wires so that there's an implicit junction.)
3. There shouldn't even be need to place *independent junction dots* manually. What the junction tool MUST be able to do is to create a junction on an existing wire. The only situations when this is necessary are these: A) When two wires cross each other without a junction, and the user wants to change that crossing into a junction. In this case the tool cuts the wires so that instead of two crossing wires there will be 4 wires, and there's an implicit junction. B) When two wires almost but not quite touch each other. As far as I can see this would be the only situation when an explicit independent junction item could be needed. But it doesn't work right now because the dot doesn't create a junction when the wires don't touch.
The point 1 is the most important. The point 2 is more about the implementation. So is the point 3 which is less important. So, I wouldn't oppose having forced manual junctions like described in #2, provided that automatic junctions/dots would work independently.
I'm not sure we would actually disagree on anything if we would understand each other. I understand #7 and agree with #8.
What I don't yet understand is if anyone actually thinks that the user must be able to place junction dots in places where there won't be junctions. I didn't understand what Seth said in #2: " Adding additional junctions can help to clarify intent even if not required." I don't see how adding a junction dot to somewhere where there isn't a junction helps. Or I misunderstood the sentence. Nor do I understand "or indicate a junction" in #10. If there is a junction, shouldn't there be a dot already? And if there isn't, why would a user want to add a junction dot there?