Petr wrote:
> If you altered the current array behaviour with vertical and radial step
> options according to my expectation, I would type "6;360;8;0" for covering
> 360 degrees. But what extra piece at 360°? Would I have to type "7;420;8;0"?
> It would be even more confusing...

Yeah, with the current way it is easier to add one item to get the spacing you wanted. I think you're correct that having to extend the angle in order to get another copy at 360 degrees is worse.

So that means that I will leave it the current way for this - only 360 degrees with no stepping will have the special case spacing.


> Besides, I thought about adding the "Step angle: Iterate angle" field to
> array-circular command. I mean you could type Item count along with Step
> angle while Angle to fill would be ignored. It would be clear, then - 6 times 60 is 360.

I kind of try to avoid this type of thing where there are similar fields, where one is ignored if another is filled... I was just thinking that maybe I could put in a toggle switch on the "Angle to fill:" label, so that when you clicked it you could flip it to "Step angle:" instead. I'm talking about the same type of toggle (with a little cycle arrow) that the Circle/Center command has when you are picking the radius - you can click on Radius there to switch it to picking the diameter instead.

- Michael