X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new (Uni-Kiel/l4ms-sc)
From: geda AT psjt DOT org (Stephan =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6ttcher?=)
To: <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] The nature of gEDA layers
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>
	<20160128164922 DOT 7bd920859ab8462f8abb0f40 AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:48:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20160128164922.7bd920859ab8462f8abb0f40@gmail.com> (Nicklas
	Karlsson's message of "Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:49:22 +0100")
Message-ID: <s6ny4b9r3x7.fsf@falbala.ieap.uni-kiel.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
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
Precedence: bulk

"Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via
geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> writes:

>> 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. 

The netlist defines the required connectivity.  The geometry implements
the connectivity to match the netlist.

Connectivity calculations needs to be fast/efficient while working on a
layout.  And it is a core concept of the program.

The implemented connectivity is derived from the geometry, overlapping
objects on conductive layers and overlapping objects between conductive
and connected drill layer.  Some objects will be marked as pins, to
match them to the netlist.

Why is the inter-layer connectivity a fundamentally different different
idea?

> 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 not understand that. What 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).

This is how the drill layers get exported.  Subject to DRC rules,
depending on the capabilities of the production process.

-- 
Stephan