On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 10:55 +0100, Bert Timmerman wrote: > One of Tom's "issues" that is to be kept in pcb are most of the mil grids > because of the bazillion perf board and mil based parts on the market, to be > bought for cheap by hobby-ists, or for "Quick-and-Neat" proto boards (we > don't play or do dirty ;-). > > Just my opinion on the subject. Imperial parts are not a problem for a sufficiently fine metric grid. I don't think we should remove the option of working on a Mil grid though. I do it most of the time, even though I realise it is a habit best got out of. Way forward: Metric "nm" grid internally, parts defined in whatever units the vendor's controlling dimensions are in. This might require relative origins to be used between the part design coordinate and the board's snap-grid, but that seems to be mandated by various IPC standards anyway. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user