delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/12/13/19:28:33

X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Find rat lines
From: John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <1355442697.2993.14.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:27:54 -0700
Message-Id: <008677C3-7BA0-4B7D-B8E7-D0A5B2CCC573@noqsi.com>
References: <20121204183305 DOT 6b04c0dc AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org> <20121208112649 DOT 388a9d22 AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org> <1355011808 DOT 19390 DOT 8 DOT camel AT localhost> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1212090407031 DOT 26605 AT igor2priv> <1355188647 DOT 12937 DOT 14 DOT camel AT localhost> <A7B4EDBD-3704-4837-9350-A16559C60A2A AT noqsi DOT com> <1355442697 DOT 2993 DOT 14 DOT camel AT localhost>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id qBE0S1gO001359
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Dec 13, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 16:23 -0700, John Doty wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
>> 
>>> We could think of tagging copper with which net it belongs to (first
>>> touch to an object (e.g. pin / pad) with a net, sticks. Any
>>> inconsistencies would stick out then.
>> 
>> The lack of this sort of simple, commonsense organizing principle
>> seems to me at the root of what I find so confusing about pcb. So,
>> instead of having a trivial way to rigorously identify shorts, pcb
>> will wind up with yet another complicated, unreliable,
>> incomprehensible heuristic.
> 
> 
> John, if you don't have anything constructive to say, please leave us to
> our discussion. I'm about fed up of negativity on this list.
> 
> I think the algorithms being discussed have the potential to be really
> useful, quite frankly - don't care if you think otherwise.

Will they find short circuits as and reliably as the simple way? Will users find it easy to understand what's going on? Of course not. They may be useful for more elaborate analysis, but a complicated algorithm used as the basis of a heuristic is not going to be as usable as the simple, rigorous approach. And believe me, simply being able to inspect and adjust the properties and affinities of an object would be a tremendous improvement in the comprehensibility of pcb.

> (IIRC, you
> don't use PCB, do you?)
> 
> I might not be my normal calm, diplomatic self at the moment,

Seem calm enough to me.

> but I
> think I'm going to hit send anyway. I can't count the times I've hit
> "cancel" after composing a reply to a thread you've "contributed" to.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Peter Clifton <peter DOT clifton AT clifton-electronics DOT co DOT uk>
> 
> Clifton Electronics
> 
> 
> 

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com



- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019