Well, It was not exactly like a “forward reference”, in the sense that I’m using a pointer to something to be defined. It was more like I already defined a point P from which I want to place another point Q at the same distance as the distance from S and T. Sometimes, S and T do not have any line joining them yet, but if I join them after placing P, I cannot refer to this desired distance because of the “temporal precedence”…
I completely understand what you are trying to say, but the situation I explained above would be completely possible to do in the paper. Maybe I wasn’t specific about what I was thinking, but that was a simple example.
I get this concept, but sometimes it prevents the “forward thinking” people to make their magic. First of all, let me emphasize that I’m not asking for a way to say “hey, place here the measurement of something I’m yet to draw”.
Let me come up with an hypothetical example (remember it is hypothetical). Let’s say that I’m drawing a long sleeve blouse and I already sketched the blouse and opened a new pattern piece for the sleeve. Let’s pretend I’ll need to use the straight distance from the shoulder end point A to the armscye bottom point B in the sleeve, and it will be needed at a point P halfway down from the top of my sleeve to define the point Q.
Then I draw the base rectangle and think: “I’ll just place P here right now”. When I finish the rest of the sleeve and am finally able to place Q, I remember that I forgot to put a line between A and B. Now I can’t use AB in P because I drew AB after P… What should I do? Delete P to put it back again? But what if it is the dependency of half of the other objects in the piece?
This kind of situation happened to me a lot… It is really painful when you have to delete half of your pattern just because you put a reference point before you should have. History trick helps me avoid this, but you have to agree with me that it is beyond the capacity of the users to imagine that such is possible.
Do you agree that the problem I stumbled upon would be entirely possible in the paper and completely possible to overcome? Just measure AB an place Q from P! But in Valentina it is a challenge.
Having no knowledge whatsoever of the design and implementation of Valentina, I can be mistaken to think that this “temporal dependency” can be supressed, but I imagine that it is only a matter of allowing the parent to be any object already placed. The rest (figuring out if can delete an object, provided it has no other depending on it) should remain the same, I believe.
This is why I asked also about the technical details.
Thank you all for your replies. I know I tend to write a lot, sorry…