That is damn interesting. When I made copilot write a script that creates a .dot diagram, I found it funny that it had the same problems with placement that I have when doing it manually.
Great idea! So, right now it defaults to this sorta "dark" theme, and the only option you'd have is to change the diagram background color or define styles. I'll make defining some preset themes a priority!
Thanks! I really like Mermaid, but if the diagram gets too complicated, it draws it how it wants and I end up reaching for Draw.io, which is also awesome, but can take a lot of time.
Fighting with mermaid is so frustraiting, especially when it comes to normal vs github formatting. This is going to replace several ad-hoc half impls I have laying around
Glad to hear it :) If you find that you want Reladraw to do something that it can't, let me know! I keep uncovering features by looking at actual Draw.io diagrams I've made and seeing if Reladraw can do it.
This is basically tikz's positioning library (right=of, below left=of) without having to touch LaTeX. With tikz it was never the nodes that hurt me, it was the edges. Once two edges want the same side of a box it gets ugly fast. Does the resolver do any routing, or is from:/to: all you get? And what happens with conflicting statements, does the first one win or do you get an error?
Does the resolver do any routing?
It doesn't auto-route around obstacles. But, if nodes A, B, and C all have edges going to the left side of D, they share that side and space themselves apart so they don't cross. If the side is too short, they'll bow out to make space for each other, so you don't have to manually fiddle. You can also give routing instructions like "these edges pass between these two nodes on their way to D".
Conflicting statements?
Statements that can all hold will all apply. Right of one node and below another is okay. Or, "right of A and B and C" will clear whichever sticks out furthest. If they all can't hold, you'll get an error naming the clashing statements (e.g., something both left and right of A). Nothing silently wins.
Thanks! My concern was that a resolver making decisions "to be helpful" could become surprising or frustrating.
For example, if you ask for edges to pass "between C and D", but those two nodes sit diagonally, the gap you are asking for might be the vertical channel or horizontal channel between them. So instead of guessing for you, it will tell you of the ambiguity and let you spell out what you want.
Fighting with mermaid is so frustraiting, especially when it comes to normal vs github formatting. This is going to replace several ad-hoc half impls I have laying around
Does the resolver do any routing? It doesn't auto-route around obstacles. But, if nodes A, B, and C all have edges going to the left side of D, they share that side and space themselves apart so they don't cross. If the side is too short, they'll bow out to make space for each other, so you don't have to manually fiddle. You can also give routing instructions like "these edges pass between these two nodes on their way to D".
Conflicting statements? Statements that can all hold will all apply. Right of one node and below another is okay. Or, "right of A and B and C" will clear whichever sticks out furthest. If they all can't hold, you'll get an error naming the clashing statements (e.g., something both left and right of A). Nothing silently wins.
Fantastic! Never change this.
People will complain. These people also prefer type unsafe languages. Hold fast.
For example, if you ask for edges to pass "between C and D", but those two nodes sit diagonally, the gap you are asking for might be the vertical channel or horizontal channel between them. So instead of guessing for you, it will tell you of the ambiguity and let you spell out what you want.