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 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.
It goes deeper than tags. It goes deeper than "UI and terminology", although
the abuse of terminology is a symptom ("polygons" are not simple geometric
figures, "elements" are not elementary, ...). The key thing that's missing is
the idea that complex things are composed of simpler things. Circuits composed
of subcircuits composed of footprints and nets, ...
Instead, there's a kludgy collection of magical objects. This is not only
confusing to users, but it makes users unnecessarily dependent on the
developers. Users should be able to define whatever composite objects they
need, rather than be restricted to the limited built-in set. And the necessity
to keep implementing magical objects from an open-ended list, and to insure
that they all play nicely together, are unnecessary burdens on the developers.
> 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.
The material (copper, teflon, nichrome, ink, ...) that the elementary objects
in a layer are made of is simply a property of the layer, I think.
>
>
> Logical group for partitioning geometry within a given PCB layer
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> WAS: "Layer" -> TO-BECOME: "object group" | "sub-layer" | ....
Composite objects generally occupy multiple physical layers. So, shoehorning
them into "layers" is confusing and unnatural.
---
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
This message contains technical discussion involving difficult issues. No
personal disrespect or malice is intended. If you perceive such, your
perception is simply wrong. I'm a busy person, and in my business "go along to
get along" causes mission failures and sometimes kills people, so I tend to be
a bit blunt.
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
