Re: gEDA-user: pcb crooked traces

[Steven Michalske <smichalske@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Rick Collins <gnuarm.2006@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 11:26 AM 10/12/2010, you wrote:
>
> So who is going to bell the cat?
I'd sugesst leather gloves......

>
> Another thought.  Using 1 nm as the base unit does everything anyone wants,
> but limits the max size board on 32 bit machines.  But do we really need 1
> nm resolution?  This allows exact representation in nm of 0.01 mil in
> inches.  Do we need exact representation of 0.01 mil?  Would 0.1 mil be
> adequate?  Using 10 nm as the base unit internally gives exact
> representation down to 0.1 mil and allows much finer resolution, just not
> exact representation in inches.  With a 10 nm base unit the max board size
> goes to 20 meters which certainly is enough for everyone, including those
> wishing to design kitchens!

We should have NO base unit internally, and only scale to internal
units on import, export, open, and save.

The files should not use the internal representation of the units in
the file format, and dosen't for low res footprints, ot ones defined
with units.

The internal representation should be flexable.  If a board is sized
to 200 meters, then pcb should adjust internally to allow for 428
meters. Then pcb should set's it's internal units to 100nm and call it
a day while warning that the minimimum resolution is 100nm.
Or if you happen to be a 64bit pcb implementation it would be just
another day at 1nm with that 428 meter board.

If when you load a footprint and the resolution required to resolve
the footprint is not there then it should warn or error that rounding
is occuring.

Steve


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