Added or changed icons

Preview cohesion

Preview stroke widths

DPI Preview

16px (shadcn/ui)

24px (default)

32px (shadcn/ui + retina)

48px (default + retina)

Icon X-rays

Icon Diffs

const CirclePileIcon = createLucideIcon('CirclePile', [
  ["circle",{"cx":"12","cy":"19","r":"2"}],
  ["circle",{"cx":"12","cy":"5","r":"2"}],
  ["circle",{"cx":"16","cy":"12","r":"2"}],
  ["circle",{"cx":"20","cy":"19","r":"2"}],
  ["circle",{"cx":"4","cy":"19","r":"2"}],
  ["circle",{"cx":"8","cy":"12","r":"2"}]
])

When you want to represent a pile/stack of bars from the side (multiple elements) vs only one with the circle icon. In metallurgy industry we have package that transit through the factory and our software show directly if the packages contains only one or if it's multiple elements.

@nathan-de-pachtere Thanks for the additional information. Sounds like a good usecase!

@ericfennis I'm actually questioning the benefit of my new icons, since we can build the same pattern by using the circle icon five times inside a CSS grid/flex. That way, people can do whatever they want — stack them slightly to the right or left, color one circle, rotate them, change the size, etc.

This just increases the library size. I also submitted this one: square-pile, but after that people will start asking for triangles, hexagons, and so on...

Wouldn't it be better to have an example of composable icons to cover this use case? Others examples , like arrow-top can be arrow-down just by rotating it, arrow-cw can be arrow-ccw by mirroring it, etc...

The benefit would be a cleaner icon search, fewer choices, and a smaller library size.

For example, in our codebase, we wrap every icon in a Vue.js component so that we can swap or use multiple libraries and improve maintainability. That way, we could simply create an IconSquarePile.vue component like this:

<template>
  <div class="grid ..."> // just example
    <Circle> //From lucide icons
    <Circle>
    <Circle>
    <Circle>
    <Circle>
  <div>
</template>

What do you think ? Should I open a subject in discussion for that approach ?

Hmm, yeah, good point.
But this, I think, is still a welcome icon to display "materials" in a simple way. But let's choose either circle-pile or square-pile for this.
Yes, it's possible to use transforms to adjust icons and combine them. But I think we should aim for the best DX. Increasing the library size should not be a blocker for a useful icon.

I don't like that it is so tall, but every other variant would sacrifice sharpness :/

I don't like that it is so tall, but every other variant would sacrifice sharpness :/

What do you mean by so tall ? Did I miss something and make it overflow the frame?

@nathan-de-pachtere Reducing the height, the pile will look more realistic. But I think reducing the horizontal gaps will result in gap violation or no grid alignment, right?

@nathan-de-pachtere Reducing the height, the pile will look more realistic. But I think reducing the horizontal gaps will result in gap violation or no grid alignment, right?

@ericfennis and @jguddas Here with the gap squeezed to maximum, will reduce readability at smaller scales

https://studio.lucide.dev/edit?value=%3Ccircle+cx=%2212%22+cy=%2219%22+r=%222%22+/%3E%3Ccircle+cx=%2212%22+cy=%225%22+r=%222%22+/%3E%3Ccircle+cx=%2216%22+cy=%2212%22+r=%222%22+/%3E%3Ccircle+cx=%2220%22+cy=%2219%22+r=%222%22+/%3E%3Ccircle+cx=%224%22+cy=%2219%22+r=%222%22+/%3E%3Ccircle+cx=%228%22+cy=%2212%22+r=%222%22+/%3E

100% scale, this looks not bad at small scale

100% scale, this looks not bad at small scale

I reduced the height and misspelled the commit message, but the requested changes are done.

@nathan-de-pachtere Nice!