These are items whose value to the program is questionable, or for which additional research is needed before we decide to implement them.
Should color be associated with an entity rather than with a layer? 2.5.
Although the ANSI standard specifies that unidirectional dimension text is preferable, we have been asked for the ability to have the dimension text aligned with the dimension lines. 1.4.
This would allow the user to ``sketch'' his drawing just as he would on paper, without regard to precision. Once the sketch is done, it could be SNAPped (or even ORTHOed) into a precise drawing.
When SNAP mode is on, some systems only move the crosshairs from one snap point to the next. This makes it very evident that SNAP mode is on. 1.4.
???
??? We might not have known what it was, but that didn't stop us from putting it in 1.4.
A general ``drawing type'' facility was proposed. A drawing type could have an associated default drawing size, resolution, menu file, and even a skeleton drawing (such as ANSI title boxes). 2.1.
Some systems allow you to draw several boxes, for example, and then adjust them so that their top lines align horizontally.
This is the ability to move an object across the screen with the cross-hairs in real time, as opposed to erasing it and redrawing it in its new location, as we do now. ``If it can be done on an Apple, we should be able to do it on our machines.'' 2.0.
This wasn't discussed at the meeting, but I've had a couple of user requests for it. These guys have large mainframe systems with large CalComp plotters, and don't want to buy another plotter to hook up to their AutoCAD system. We tell them about DXF files, and they ask if we have a program (or know of one) to do the job. The CalComp subroutine package is used widely enough that it might make sense for us to provide a ``sample'' FORTRAN program, but we'd have to supply the source, and support could become a problem.
Editor: John Walker