| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On 01/28/2016 07:59 AM, Chad Parker (parker DOT charles AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > The drill-layers are marked as such with a property that is hardwired to > the code that handled connectivity. > > > I would try to keep connectivity and geometry separate if possible. > > Geometry and connectivity needs to be hardwired in the core data > structures. That is the core of what is needed to be efficient while > drawing. > > > Ultimately a layout tool is a connectivity aware drawing package, although some would argue that the connectivity awareness is > optional. You certainly -can- layout a board without net lines, but I think many if not most board designers find them quite useful. The connectivity and geometry are interdependent. If you move a layer up the stack, what is adjacent changes and some of the netlist/ratlines data is now stale. That data can be updated and reconciled by running DRCs usually. Since we almost always use netlist/ratlines data and DRCs, the connectivity doesn't really NEED to be in core data structures -- it can be an attribute associated with a trace or pad's unique ID. One thing needed in core data structures is room for and a mechanism for a unique ID for each atomic board element such as trace, pad, polygon, text... Which brings us to text. Should text be a separate type of atomic board element still? With fonts to swapping out? Could it reduce to a small bitmap and the idea of text and fonts be handled at a higher abstraction level in the code? What about bitmaps? Allow them to be made from square pixels of arbitrary size, or only from other bits of trace atomic board elements?
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |