Re: gEDA-user: General Layers questions

[Steven Michalske <smichalske@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stephan Boettcher
<boettcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>>> Why single out "via" and "footprint" when they are merely members of
>>> an open-ended list of possible composite objects?
>>
>> Because a tool that doesn't deal with real-world concepts in a
>> user-friendly way is unusable.
>
> Yes.  The real world concepts must exist, in a higher level.  In the
> attributes.  The HIDs must implement them in a user-friendly way.  At
> the lowest level, there shall be abstractions.
>
> The GUI must present footprints, vias, and hierachical sublayouts, both
> in copy on write and in truly hierachical fashion.  But at the core,
> they work all just the same. Then there will be no more question if some
> feature is supported in elements or not, or how convoluted a via may be.
>

I have had some convoluted vias for high speed signals.  different
diameters on different layers, with different clearances from the
surrounding planes.  And we really could have udes a DRC that checked
if the blind via ended on top of another signal trace.....  High speed
noise coupled on to that trace.


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user