davidosterberg wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 7:18 pm
I can definitely see both sides of this one. I completely agree with the idea that going by the name point-on-object we should definitely expect that the same button can do point on point. Since point is an object. No question about that. I also like the idea of removing a button.
It's also reasonable to expect coincidence to apply to edges, specially considering this is how various other CAD softwares operate too, conforming to common practice when possible is a good idea IMO, makes it easier to go from one CAD software to the other.
I would not say that the circle is coincident with the line segment. Neither would I say that the circle is on the object to be frank.
however it is coincident with the
line. By definition lines are infinite.
All edges are infinite sets of points with a mathematical definition while points are sets comprised of a single point (duh). The concept of a coincidence constraint can then be said to force a point to belong to the set of points of the other geometry. When it's edges, it can be anything in the mathematical definition of that edge, if it is a point then they must be the same.
What it does is to remove one degree of freedom from the point.
The coincident constraint removes 2 degrees of freedom.
yes, because restricting to line provides more freedom than restricting to a point, the details of the implementation don't change the fact that they are conceptually the same, constrain a point to be on another geometry.