On Sat, 2011-05-14 at 13:56 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > I do not have a problem with the idea of single layer per physical > > layer, > > PCB uses a single layer group per physical layer, with one or more > drawing layers within each group. I see no reason to dump that now. > We just need to work on the UI and terminology so that it's less > confusing how it all works together. To counter that.. I see no compelling reason to keep it though. Certainly if we were to add the ability to tag objects and change viewing styles based upon tags. Given we'll probably end up keeping the irksome things, can we swap the terminology around? Physical PCB layer, mechanical drawing etc.. -------------------------------------------- WAS: "Layer group" -> TO-BECOME: "Layer" Alternative terminology might be "foil" or "artwork", depending on context. Logical group for partitioning geometry within a given PCB layer ---------------------------------------------------------------- WAS: "Layer" -> TO-BECOME: "object group" | "sub-layer" | .... Our current "layers" within a "layer group" are what an SVG or general graphics editor might call "layers" to describe the way they build up to make a single drawing (in this case of a physical PCB layer), but as such, the term is too overloaded for us to use here. What these sub-layers actually do is group drawing primitives so they can be coloured differently. -- 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