On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stephan Boettcher <boettc...@physik.uni-kiel.de> wrote: > DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> writes: > >>> Why single out "via" and "footprint" when they are merely members of >>> an open-ended list of possible composite objects? >> >> Because a tool that doesn't deal with real-world concepts in a >> user-friendly way is unusable. > > Yes. The real world concepts must exist, in a higher level. In the > attributes. The HIDs must implement them in a user-friendly way. At > the lowest level, there shall be abstractions. > > The GUI must present footprints, vias, and hierachical sublayouts, both > in copy on write and in truly hierachical fashion. But at the core, > they work all just the same. Then there will be no more question if some > feature is supported in elements or not, or how convoluted a via may be. >
I have had some convoluted vias for high speed signals. different diameters on different layers, with different clearances from the surrounding planes. And we really could have udes a DRC that checked if the blind via ended on top of another signal trace..... High speed noise coupled on to that trace. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
