First I thought "functional group" would be good, but what you describe - a construct of functional interdependence spread on several layers in mechanical CAD is in manyWell, as you suggest below, Groups are essentially a way of tagging different parts, so they would be completely independent of the physical layers - and the connectivity checker.** Confusingly, PCB already has "layer groups", which consist of multiple "layers". A layer group is what ends up physically as a plane of copper in your produced board. Your terminology reverses the meaning, with a "layer group" consisting of logically grouped parts spanning multiple physical layers. I presume you intend to get rid of PCB's existing layer group functionality (good riddance IMO), however it would be less confusing to pick a new name. Perhaps "logical group".Yes, absolutely! But I cannot think of a good name :) "logical group" is too long and ambiguous. Right now I am using "Group", but that's even less useful.
cases called a "block" or "module".The concepts of layers + layer groups (hierarchical layers in mech-CAD) is orthogonal
to blocks. E.g. you can turn visibility on and off for each independently.For the sake of visual collision detection in the case of EDA 3 levels of visibilty
as suggested may be in order: coloured/saturated, greyed out and invisible.Esp. useful I envision the possibility to grey out blocks one does not work on
while they stay visible.Being able to reuse a block independently of the layout it was created it, like in
mechanical CAD would be very welcome here as well (did I miss something?) _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user