X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:52:25 +1200
From: Lilith Bryant <dark141 AT gmail DOT com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] pour clearing around pads
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References: <1404637590 DOT 750 DOT 43 AT zotlet>
	<201407061702 DOT s66H2GlL022465 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <201407061702.s66H2GlL022465@envy.delorie.com> (from
	dj AT delorie DOT com on Mon Jul  7 05:02:16 2014)
X-Mailer: Balsa 2.5.1-79-g9697477
Message-Id: <1404719545.750.48@zotlet.(none)>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id s677qqab027912
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 2014-07-07 05:02:16 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> > Sorry to answer my own reply here, but I've just thought of a better way
> to
> > do this.  If the raw polygon is first built with clearances of (P+L)
> instead 
> > of just P....
> 
> That just moves the problem to other places where the clearance would
> have been P+L+L
> 

I don't think it does.

If the final step (i.e. the "dilate") is union-ing a series of L width "lines" 
on the (super-eroded) polygon's perimeter,  then no part of it can 
possibly end up thinner than L.   

How does a "proper" dilation differ from this anyway?