X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date:	Sat, 28 Jun 2014 22:17:55 -0400
Message-Id:	<201406290217.s5T2Ht48017307@envy.delorie.com>
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<1404004663.18463.42.camel@pcjc2lap> (message from Peter Clifton
	on Sun, 29 Jun 2014 02:17:43 +0100)
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] pcb: Patch for arcs with different radii for x and
	y on screen
References:	<ojbt218fi23of8gryausfclb DOT 1403353431756 AT email DOT android DOT com>
	<53A7E8F0 DOT 8020905 AT philippklostermann DOT de>
	<1403800440 DOT 25929 DOT 14 DOT camel AT pcjc2lap>
	<20140627112707 DOT GB21723 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
	<1403900109 DOT 6474 DOT 8 DOT camel AT pcjc2lap> <877g422gyf DOT fsf AT rover DOT gag DOT com>
	<1403918513 DOT 6474 DOT 37 DOT camel AT pcjc2lap> <874mz53cxn DOT fsf AT rover DOT gag DOT com>
	<1403964458 DOT 21012 DOT 13 DOT camel AT pcjc2lap>
	<201406281614 DOT s5SGEm2m030282 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <1404004663 DOT 18463 DOT 42 DOT camel AT pcjc2lap>
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

> > I've used both types of tools, and IMHO it's better to have a "canned"
> > geometry that you can reference, as well as making exceptions.
> > Sketchup has a good implementation of this, but lacks a way of finding
> > all features that are exceptions.
> 
> Is this in favour of, or against indirecting through reference to a
> separately defined padstack? (We could still choose to copy-on-write, or
> edit-all when modifying vias / pads).

In general, in favor of.  The trick is handling the exceptions
properly.

I'm also in favor of storing footprints that way, so you could (for
example) update all your 0603 footprints at once.

> Would a pad-stack definition be explicit for the board stack-up in use,
> or would it more usefully read something like:
> 
> TOP PASTEMASK LAYER      : Round 2.0mm
> TOP SOLDERMASK LAYER     : Round 2.2mm
> TOP (or START?) LAYER    : Round 2.0mm Clear Round 2.4mm 
> INTERMEDIATE LAYER       : Round 2.1mm Clear Round 2.5mm 
> BOTTOM (or END?) LAYER   : Round 2.0mm Clear Round 2.4mm 
> BOTTOM SOLDERMASK LAYER  : Round 2.2mm
> BOTTOM PASTEMASK LAYER   : Round 2.0mm

I think pad stacks, and footprints in general, need a more "semantic"
stackup (like your example) that can be merged to any actual layer
stack.

> The additive combination of multiple underlying layers is a nuisance
> from a code point of view.. it means we need to combine these various
> data-sources to check for connectivity, and it means some operations can
> be slowed - as the spatial indexes are kept per-layer, not per group.

I think we need additive and subtractive layers, though.  Managing
connectivity is no harder than what we have now, if we design suitable
iterators.  The only trick will be managing polygons - we'd need to
cache an "effective polygon set" for connectivity purposes.

> IMO, although the history pre-dates my involvement, PCB's layer groups
> only really exist as a substitute for being able to tag objects by
> class, or property.

And pretty colors :-)

> > Photo mode does this too, and OSH Park interprets PCB layouts this
> > way.
> 
> Does photo mode use anything  other than the outer-layers though?

Yes.  If you do a four-layer board, you can see shadows of the inner
layers through the outer layers, just like a real board.

- Raw text -