Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/01/28/10:49:35

X-Authentication-Warning: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113;
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820;
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQt0HJpau5cm08L2uO+3Iu6OLPLcxT8APW9QxaKxzdyjfMlkQ3U3aipVgPNHtMv3A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id u139mr3754647wmd.81.1453996163882;
Thu, 28 Jan 2016 07:49:23 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:49:22 +0100
From: "Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] The nature of gEDA layers
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1601180756390 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv>
<CAC4O8c-ZyNnCzCDHXkYYabSD4fG8vf+CKmhMycNJujGMPKzQDQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
<s6nr3h49hrq DOT fsf AT blaulicht DOT dmz DOT brux>
<DDB07351-7C94-4B5C-99FA-83750CD4592A AT noqsi DOT com>
<20160126233332 DOT dec2f06f5c74354a3841989c AT gmail DOT com>
<s6n1t93h4ub DOT fsf AT blaulicht DOT dmz DOT brux>
<20160127091746 DOT 1c7a976c2752f913921688ac AT gmail DOT com>
<s6npowne74w DOT fsf AT blaulicht DOT dmz DOT brux>
<20160127141334 DOT c738feb9dbeb54a7dec3dff8 AT gmail DOT com>
<s6n37tjt1tv DOT fsf AT falbala DOT ieap DOT uni-kiel DOT de>
<56A8F74B DOT 8080304 AT ecosensory DOT com>
<CAC4O8c9UKLsh5FAAwUMEtHThKH-w3gUmCU2i9dRW9igkyRt-TQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
<CAJZxidDmjMtd_fKvR5qZVRa+hwDUbvfaz79oZjkBgDuE1m8RBg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
<56A961BC DOT 3040405 AT ecosensory DOT com>
<CAJZxidC=nbxAinOtpfGHHqwPXbEMrhfat7jKgA9KBp3EVVg4_Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
<s6nbn863xlu DOT fsf AT blaulicht DOT dmz DOT brux>
<56A9E416 DOT 8080500 AT ecosensory DOT com>
<20160128124020 DOT 8f2f33210481f637a696f5d0 AT gmail DOT com>
<CAJZxidD7=NE+Q3FGOU+ER3Xh7TRskEPRTKa=yrwUm51_VaYw0A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
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 wouldn't include inter-layer connectivity as a layer. I think that's a
> fundamentally different idea. I would suggest implementing connectivity
> within a footprint/pattern/group as something like a netlist. pcb
> implements connectivity awareness for other reasons, so you might as well
> reuse the idea here. But I think that is a discussion for a different
> thread.

As is now plating flag solve connectivity problem. It is possible to figure out the geometry of the plating between layers from the cut out shape and plating flag. To include inter-layer connectivity as a layer would however probably not be a good idea because of the problem involved in working other direction.

> ..., I do think you call a drill
> drawing a layer ...

As is now the drill in practice end up as a circular cut out on all layers except if plugged via or other special technology is used. A drill drawing would more or less belong to board layer(s).

> > A layer is a flat surface made of particular material for example: copper
> > foil, solder mask, insulating board.
> My suggestion is that you modify your statement slightly and replace "A
> layer is a flat surface..." with "A layer -represents- a flat surface".

Yes "A layer -represents- a flat surface" is a better expressed.

> ... A circular piece of copper could be in a group/pattern
> container (e.g. a component footprint) and also in a layer container. You
> would be able to access the primitive from either container.

I agree.

> Yes, I completely agree. You could even have multiple drill layers if you
> wanted to. For example, a drill layer for the top side, a drill layer for
> the bottom side, and drill layers for any or all inner layers. This could
> be useful in implementing blind/buried vias.

Drill belong to board layer as circular cut out. As is now drill make a circular cut out in all layers. For blind/buried vias it would be a circular cut out only in some layers. Even though drill belong to board as circular cut out it may create a problem to tell which layers should be drilled for a buried/blind via if starting point is knowledge is about which layers should be connected but with possibility to update already used via it should probably work fine.

> The via editor will help the user to define all required via layers
> >
> and apply designrules that test for manufacturability.
> >
> I would just say footprint/pattern editor. A via is really no different
> from a footprint/pattern when it comes down to it.

Yes, there is a difference how and then they are used although otherwise it would be good if all drawing primitives are available for all of them and then same editor would be natural.

> --Chad

Nicklas Karlsson

- Raw text -

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