delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
X-Recipient: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Date: | Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:52:25 +1200 |
From: | Lilith Bryant <dark141 AT gmail DOT com> |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] pour clearing around pads |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
References: | <1404637590 DOT 750 DOT 43 AT zotlet> |
<201407061702 DOT s66H2GlL022465 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> | |
In-Reply-To: | <201407061702.s66H2GlL022465@envy.delorie.com> (from |
dj AT delorie DOT com on Mon Jul 7 05:02:16 2014) | |
X-Mailer: | Balsa 2.5.1-79-g9697477 |
Message-Id: | <1404719545.750.48@zotlet.(none)> |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id s677qqab027912 |
Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
On 2014-07-07 05:02:16 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > Sorry to answer my own reply here, but I've just thought of a better way > to > > do this. If the raw polygon is first built with clearances of (P+L) > instead > > of just P.... > > That just moves the problem to other places where the clearance would > have been P+L+L > I don't think it does. If the final step (i.e. the "dilate") is union-ing a series of L width "lines" on the (super-eroded) polygon's perimeter, then no part of it can possibly end up thinner than L. How does a "proper" dilation differ from this anyway?
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |