On 04:25 PM 20/02/2002 -0800, JaMi Smith said:

>In view of your understanding of the problem, I take it then that you
>too agree that there is a need for this issue to be presented to Protel.
>Really, not ranting,

No, but care must be taken with language - mine was carefully chosen to be 
rude.  I am not sure if you wanted to create the impression of 
superciliousness but I am afraid that is the impression I took away from a 
reply that starts:

>Well ~
>You're almost right . . .
>A typical RF Choke on a PCB is a certain length conductor (typically 1/4

(Especially after the last recent round of email designed to goad the only 
list member who *really* takes that time to understand the subtleties of 
each persons questions and responses.)

Anyway on to matters of substance - Yes, I would like a Tie entity that was 
able to safely control the shorting of nets. This entity should be 
embeddable in library components as well as be able to be used as a free 
entity.  It should not constrain us as to what width it has and ideally 
what shape it can take.  IMO, it should certainly allow for safe net 
collisions in the following forms:
1) track to track  (tracks include arcs)
2) track to pad
3) track to fill
4) fill to fill
5) pad to pad may be difficult but may also be a nice feature.

I would also like the Allow Short Circuits design rule to have region and 
object scopes.  This has been discussed before.  At the time it was 
discussed in the manner in which we have found has results with Protel now 
Altium.  That is constructive discussion about where the flaw maybe and 
then suggestions for how it can be better.

Many of us who were part of the debacle of P99 and then the major 
improvements in P99SE have learnt that cryptic comments like "Go ask 
Protel" have no beneficial effect.  Much better to present the 
issue,  state what you would like and then have a calm, warts-and-all 
discussion.  Protel do watch this list and, I am sure,note when consensus 
is forming and also, I am sure, go away and think about methods of 
implementing some of the features that we have not been able to agree on 
how best to implement.

Lecture off,
Ian Wilson

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to