I see. let see what i can do. BRB
Registered forum members do not see this ad.
It is better to be in the lower-order entities.Hence the statement
"Problem I can see with that is, which one the two will be moved to "Duplicates" layer?"
(setq objs (ssget "_X" '((0 . "~VIEWPORT") (0 . "~INSERT"))))
(setq objs (ssget ":L" '((0 . "~VIEWPORT") (0 . "~INSERT"))))
For my case it is preferable that the entities considered duplicates (or common) detected in the lower order of overlapping entities, are sent to its own layer. The suggestion of layers with the suffix D is interesting.How'd you propose to go about doing that?
We could include a prompt to select an entity for layer information and retain enitities on that layer. and the rest would be moved to a new layer with the its original name with a suffix of _D?
Would that work for you?
In short, the most important thing is that made the detection and differentiation of the entities considered duplicates, so it will be possible to manipulate independently.
Thank you. I'm waiting.
However, I continue to try the latest version of the routine but I find several inconsistencies. I see that some entities that are not duplicates are detected as such and sent to the respective layer. Also, sometimes duplicate entities are directed to the respective layer but does not assume the color set for the same.
Certainly these are problems to be solved.
I noticed that too
Check the previous posted code
Last edited by pBe; 6th Sep 2011 at 12:13 pm.
I prefer to be assigned a different color.
Any color. is indifferent.
However I tried the new version of the routine. It seems to be better. But still some inconsistencies.
I attach an image to better understand.
The result after running the routine is not consistent: Sometimes doing the work properly and sometimes not. Strange.
No. If no polylines. The polylines of the rectangles were previously exploded.
In most cases the routine performs the task well. It's almost perfect.