On 06:29 PM 20/02/2002 -0800, Brad Velander said:
>Ian,
>         had we not come to a group decision about a year ago that the Allow
>Short Circuits design rule didn't work? I certainly never was able to make
>it work at all and several others had had similar luck. My short circuit
>would highlight in the brightest shade of violation magenta you have ever
>seen.
>
>Sincerely,
>Brad Velander.

See all that RF work has fried my brain.  You are probably right.  I think 
it doesn't work even if it does work - meaning that even if it did what it 
is supposed to the inability to control where the short occurs is a failing.

You are correct Brad, just tried it - the clearance rule generates an error 
regardless of the short circuit rule.  This re-raises another issue - what 
may be useful at times is to be able to prevent a rule (like the clearance 
rule) from applying - sort of an anti-rule - a method of preventing a rule 
from applying much like the NoERC Sch but it would need to be precisely 
targeted to a rule - as Abd ul-Rahman suggested recently.  This would allow 
for instance, a designer, to be able to disable clearance checking between 
two components, or between two pads used to short two nets together.

(This has been discussed before as has the concept of a NoSync PCB 
directive/attribute.)

Brad, I will go off an do my penance now,
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:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* 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