On 09/06/2010 04:27 PM, Levente Kovacs wrote:
What do you consider the 'footprint' level? If the 'footprint' is defined the base object of a group of arbitrary elements, then the ability to define footprints with arcs, pad stacks, etc. comes quite naturally, as a combination of #2 and #5 of the original list of qualities I proposed:On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 12:57:59 -0700 Andrew Poelstra<asp11@xxxxxx> wrote:Or, could we base everything off of lines, attach a 'curvature' property to create arcs, and build polygons from that.I woldn't do that. The file would end up consisting of the same stuff. It's like you could only have points. I think we should define primitives as the most commonly used shapes in pcb layouts. I prefer line, polygon, circle, arc. Why arc and circle are not merged? Because the diameter of the arc is the center of the bent line; however, the diameter of a circle is the edge. And of course we have to implement padstacks at the footprint level.
2) Footprint re-use: reduce file size by having components refer to a 'base' component with XYRS information, make component tweaking easier. Say you wanted to change all your 0603 resistors - it's easier to change the fundamental component, rather than the present case of to modifying individual components in all of their rotations. 5) Ability to lock any portion of the location coordinate, either in absolute or relative to another entity (line segment locked to pin/pad, components locked to the same Y coordinate, etc) - rather than just specifying an absolute coordinate.
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user