On May 14, 2011, at 11:08 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
To counter that.. I see no compelling reason to keep it though.
We'll need it more when we add layer types.
Real physical layers have material properties, thickness, and perhaps others.
They don't have types.
Given we'll probably end up
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
FWIW, I'd love to see PCB's enforce one layer per layer of the
board, tagging objects if necessary to implement similar functionality
to what we currently use layers and layer groups for.
One layer per physical layer would imply that element pins (pads)
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
On May 14, 2011, at 11:56 AM, 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,
No, it does not. There is no 1-1 relationship between pcb layers and physical
layers. Examples:
The insulating
No, it does not. There is no 1-1 relationship between pcb layers and
physical layers.
Yes, there is. You just have a different interpretation of the word
layers than the rest of us.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
On May 14, 2011, at 2:31 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
No, it does not. There is no 1-1 relationship between pcb layers and
physical layers.
Yes, there is. You just have a different interpretation of the word
layers than the rest of us.
My interpretation corresponds to the normal meaning of
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
On May 14, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
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
On 05/14/2011 05:47 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
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
To counter that.. I see no compelling reason to keep it though.
We'll need it more when we add layer types.
Given we'll probably end up keeping the irksome things, can we swap the
terminology around?
Yup. I think we decided sheets was the best term for what is now
known as layers.
Hi everyone,
I just thought I'd document this idea in order to get some feedback. I
have no time to implement it for the foreseeable future, but it might
provide someone inspiration to get hacking on PCB.
I sometimes find myself working within a particular generation of
prototype board, wanting
I would definitely use this. I typically maintain a document of all
patches whilst I'm bringing up the PCB for technicians to use then I
use it myself to modify pcb/schematics.
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
Hi everyone,
I just thought I'd document this
On 05/13/2011 08:10 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
Comments?
Sounds close to the approach of Fritzing, where wiring is documented
as literal wires put in a plug-board. Your concept is different only
in keeping the as built prototype as a reference -- no plug-board.
One step of getting the omitted
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 09:01 -0500, John Griessen wrote:
On 05/13/2011 08:10 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
Comments?
Sounds close to the approach of Fritzing, where wiring is documented
as literal wires put in a plug-board. Your concept is different only
in keeping the as built prototype as a
On May 13, 2011, at 7:10 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
Hi everyone,
I just thought I'd document this idea in order to get some feedback. I
have no time to implement it for the foreseeable future, but it might
provide someone inspiration to get hacking on PCB.
I sometimes find myself working
Would it be useful. Yes
Would it be easy No.
When you cut a trace you might split a node into two nodes. Or then
again you might not if there is a loop on the PCB. You would need to
extract connectivity from the layout to be sure. The cut on the PCB is
unlikely to map to a nice
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 11:09 -0600, John Doty wrote:
In ancient Greek astronomy, when the theory of planetary motion didn't
fit the data, they added epicycles. Layers have become pcb's
epicycles: every time somebody wants a feature, they propose a new
kind of layer.
FWIW, I'd love to see
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 11:16 -0700, Ouabache Designworks wrote:
Would it be useful. Yes
Would it be easy No.
Indeed not.
I was thinking you would work from the schematic first anyway, so you
make a break where you want it on the schematic, then correct the PCB.
PCB can already verify that
18 matches
Mail list logo
