On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:50:55AM -0400, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: > Since this would be in the layer definition we could shorten it without > loss of readability to: > (groups > (GROUP_NAME CANONICAL_NAME1, CANONICAL_NAME2 ... CANONICAL_NAME_N) > )
Grammar issue :P never got the original rationale for how the format was structured. Not a problem anyway. > New canonical names are: > > F.Courtyard > B.Courtyard > F.CourtyardZ > B.CourtyardZ > F.Keepout > B.Keepout > > If inner layer keep outs are desired, add: > > Inner#.Courtyard Uhm. Stop. Courtyard makes no sense for internal layers. So a better list would be: F.Courtyard B.Courtyard F.KeepoutZ B.KeepoutZ F.Keepout B.Keepout Inner#.Keepout (no idea on how the KeepoutZ would be actually used...) > The footprint definition would be the appropriate place to add it with > something like: > > (front_courtyard_z ENCLOSED_AREA_GEOMETRY_LIST (height HEIGHT_IN_MM)) > > where ENCLOSED_AREA_GEOMETRY_LIST is a list of drawing elements that > defined an enclosed area. Or otherwise simply define a number for the height and let sort the primitives on the layer themselves. Or including the equivalent of the IDF data (makes sense, especially since now there is a lib for IDF). Well, that form is more or less an IDF equivalent already... > Am I missing anything else that was part of the discussion? More or less it's there. Maybe some recognition with the other CAD systems could pop up other 'obvious' layer tags to standardize. -- Lorenzo Marcantonio Logos Srl _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
