X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <53B965BE.6040303@sonic.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 08:05:34 -0700
From: Dave Curtis <davecurtis AT sonic DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] pour clearing around pads
References: <53B8CC66 DOT 2080909 AT sonic DOT net> <201407060516 DOT s665GVb3027395 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <201407060516.s665GVb3027395@envy.delorie.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-ID: C;Ppsw+x4F5BG/amuUdPQXfw== M;ppRq+x4F5BG/amuUdPQXfw==
X-Spam-Flag: No
X-Sonic-Spam-Details: 0.0/5.0 by cerberusd
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 07/05/2014 10:16 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> The peninsulas neck down to less than the minimum copper width rule.
> I typically expand the pad clearances until such necks vanish.
On this footprint that would be slightly annoying, although workable. I 
did consider doing that.
>> Third, is it legal to specify zero-width Pad[] elements in a footprint,
>> and assign clearance values, in order to composite some clearance into
>> the footprint?
> I think this is fine, although perhaps a tiny non-zero width might be
> needed.  I don't know if these cause outputs in the gerber file,
> though, so be careful.
Is there a reliable way to validate that zero-width pads are usable?  I 
was thinking that this might be a good way to deal with the gang mask 
problem as well.

I'm thinking that a reasonable way to specify clearance/mask features 
that don't have associated copper is:

1. Draw a Pad[] with zero width, but with clearance/mask set create 
desired relief.
2. Give the Pad[] a pin number that is *not* used in the part, that way 
it will not show up in the netlist and cause rat/routing/connectivity 
confusion.