X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<53B9C82F.7030109@sonic.net>
Date:	Sun, 06 Jul 2014 15:05:35 -0700
From:	Dave Curtis <davecurtis AT sonic DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] pour clearing around pads
References:	<53B8CC66 DOT 2080909 AT sonic DOT net> <201407060516 DOT s665GVb3027395 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <53B965BE DOT 6040303 AT sonic DOT net> <201407061708 DOT s66H86a8022645 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <53B9A998 DOT 8050803 AT sonic DOT net> <201407062004 DOT s66K4GUS031084 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<201407062004.s66K4GUS031084@envy.delorie.com>
X-Sonic-ID:	C;+iy1p1kF5BGGxGuUdPQXfw== M;lCQKqFkF5BGGxGuUdPQXfw==
X-Spam-Flag:	No
X-Sonic-Spam-Details:	0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

> Polygon clearance can be larger than the line space rule, too.
polygon-to-pad different from track-to-pad, is that what you mean? I'm 
confused.
>> Conceptually, it seems like a "zero width pad" solves a couple of
>> long-standing annoyances. It could be used to clean up the kind of
>> clearance issue I'm having here, and it could also create gang masks.
>> If people agreed, I could see a couple of approaches...
> The "Right" way is to have a separate layer for extra clearance, but
> pcb isn't designed to handle that.
>
Well, yes.  I vaguely remember from the last time I looked at pcb that 
adding a new layer type is quite pervasive.  I was hoping one of the 
other approaches would fit better with existing infrastructure and 
provide a way forward that didn't require so much heavy lifting.... 
along the philosophy of "there's a right way, a wrong way, and the pcb 
way...."

- Raw text -