Mail Archives: geda-user/2014/07/10/00:50:19
> It strikes me that this is an excellent layer model for talking about
> footprint models, even though pcb doesn't support arbitrary symbolic
> layers. If we define a model consisting of symbolic logic layers, each
> containing sublayers, and define rendering rules, then we can map what
> pcb *currently* does onto that same model.
>
> So while ultimately it would be great if users could create arbitrary
> layer stacks with arbitrary names, and define their rendering order,
> right now today pcb *has* a set of logical layers, with defined names,
> and a defined rendering order. That means one could go ahead and define
> a footprint model around some future flexible layer model. The
> footprint file format can target the flexible layer model, its just that
> if you code a footprint today there is exactly one layer model available
> to you, with pre-defined layer names, so your footprint needs to live
> within those constraints. As pcb moves forward, more of the semantics
> of the footprint model become available as layer constraints are relaxed.
I suppose we could start with a new footprint *import* format, and
support a subset of it, with the expectation that we'd support more of
it later. I'd want to consider it "experimental" in case we end up
*not* supporting it later, or supporting something different.
Bonus if we could convert that format to Kicad too :-)
- Raw text -