Arrow when wire goes under object

[jacemdom]

Add an arrow to a wire when it goes under an object. Would remove the need of going around a small object just for clarity.

[altenbach]

I don't like the arrow. It adds a lot of weight to show something that does not exist (a connection!). Besides, arrows on wires are already reserved for the simulation toolkit and have a special meaning.

I would be happy with a very small gap right at the icon, same as when wires cross without connection. This would keep things consistent and does not introduce another symbol.

When wires cross, the lower wire has a small gap on either side of the higher wire. In analogy, if a wire goes underneath another object is should blank out a pixels before and after the object.

Of course it is often better not to overlap things! Of course I make an exception once in a while, e.g. look at the wire between "replace array subset" and "+1" here. Of course that raises the question how to handle such a case, because the blue wire is actually connected on one side... maybe blank it only where it emerges from underneath? I don't see how to easily handle all possible cases.

[Mads]

Avoiding overlaps are of course ideal, however in general I think diagrams look cleaner if you prioritice fewer bends on the wires over lack of overlap....I wish the auto-clean would agree on that though;-)

Some sort of indication of a lack of connection could be nice...but perhaps we could attack it the other way around - by always having a small dot at the terminals where a connection *has* been made?

[Darren]

Any idea that has received less than 3 kudos within 3 years after posting will be automatically declined.