Re: gEDA-user: General Layers questions

[DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I don't want to end up with the current state that some 'specialy
> named' layers receive special treatment.

From a practical standpoint, I think it makes sense to have a fast way
to scan for layers of some high-level type, as well as further typing
them by name.

My original design had an enumerated type for each drawing layer, that
was one of (for example) "copper, silk, soldermask, paste, outline,
other" with flags for "normal, inverted" and an assignment to a
physical layer (1..N).

That way, when you're doing something compute-intensive like
connectivity checks for "auto-enforce drc clearance" you aren't doing
a bazillion string compares.

Actions that are performed less often, like mapping a footprint to an
element, can use a more open-ended string-attribute with more complex
rules.


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