On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 11:33 -0700, Ben Jackson wrote: > On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 04:48:39PM +0000, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote: > > > > I like to work with two screens. This would mix well with peters design. > > The dialog with the list of current violations would sit on the right > > while the layout can be dealt with on the left screen. > > The dialog can also group by common cause (insufficient clearance, too-small > annular ring, etc). Plus it could have buttons like "force annular ring to > min size".
Yep, the "Auto fix" button would be handy. Candidates for an easy fix: Annulus size, drill size, line / arc width, polygon clearances. The trick is to figure out that the fix can be applied without introducing further violations (or perhaps we don't care - just let them stack up in the list.). More importantly though, I think we need to improve the geometric reporting of the existing checks though. The X,Y coordinates quoted by the back-end aren't actually always centred on the violation, and in many cases, we don't actually know what the violating distance is.. just that the rule has failed. > I also like the idea of a DRC layer. I think you still need something like > the dialog to help you navigate it. > -- 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!) _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
