abdullah wrote:so that there is no need to qualify a constraint as driving or driven?
There is no need to do that regardless. We have constraints and reference constraints ATM. That was my whole point about the terminology used in the dialog. That is no further qualification is needed when it comes to the GUI.
Said that and as for your proposal. If there is general consensus it has may vote.
I researched a bit further (SW). And the thing is:
Inserting Driven Dimensions
You can insert driven (reference) dimensions when creating sketch entities. This is helpful if you want to switch between inserting driving and driven dimensions.
All the proposed terminology could be used. In this one sentence everything comes together. They actually use the term driving/driven and for sketcher dimensions (not constraints)! And in addition (and a pure gem) they refer to driven dimension as a reference dimension (the term reference actually being used in the url) in the same sentence. This is a perfect score in my opinion. As it shows ALL the terminology proposals in the past (and a few more combinations) can work just fine. Talking about the closure!
And i must say again i like on how they use the term Relations for geometry set of constraints. Anyway this is more than i hoped for and for me this is closure. As for the rest whatever gets general consensus has my vote!
triplus wrote:it shows ALL the terminology proposals in the past (and a few more combinations) can work just fine. Talking about the closure!
"Darmok and Jalad on the ocean"
Maybe what could be done is to add some of the alternate terms parenthetically on the wiki. I will look on the weekend.
abdullah wrote:A P.R. a day keeps the doctor away:
OK it's worth a try. When i select a single point and click on Coincident constraint. Pop-up is the outcome. Wouldn't it be better to do something useful instead. Like creating coincident constraint between the selected point and origin?
The question is, it is a common operation to make points coincident with the origin? In my workflow, either it gets constrained via "autoconstraints" on creation or it is extremely rare that I have to do this operation. If it is worth in your workflow, then I can implement it, it is not that it would take me more than 10 minutes.
triplus wrote:...When i select a single point and click on Coincident constraint. Pop-up is the outcome. Wouldn't it be better to do something useful instead. Like creating coincident constraint between the selected point and origin?
The question is, it is a common operation to make points coincident with the origin? In my workflow, either it gets constrained via "autoconstraints" on creation or it is extremely rare that I have to do this operation. If it is worth in your workflow, then I can implement it, it is not that it would take me more than 10 minutes.
I would like it to find the closest point and get coincident to it. Also some smartness is due. So that it doesn't suddenly make a redundant coincident between points that have tangent connection applied already... and doesn't throw that point off the screen because the closest point happened to be so far away...
abdullah wrote:
The question is, it is a common operation to make points coincident with the origin? In my workflow, either it gets constrained via "autoconstraints" on creation or it is extremely rare that I have to do this operation. If it is worth in your workflow, then I can implement it, it is not that it would take me more than 10 minutes.
It is very rare to have more than two points coincide with the origin, so that wouldn't be sensible for me. Save the 10 minutes and have a break!