Jared Casper <jaredcas...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Martin Kupec <martin.ku...@kupson.cz> wrote: >> If layers types would be defined by attributes, someone would be able to >> declare one layer both as conductive and as silk for example. That could >> cause me a nighmares. That is why I insist on 'typed' layers, not >> 'tagged' layer. >> >> That example is probably silly, but someone would probably come up with >> something more realistic, but still giving me nightmares. >> > > But what if I want a silk layer to just be a copy of a copper layer? > That may be just as silly, but I'm sure someone could come up with a > use for it. Why would such a layer cause nightmares? When the code > is worried about connectivity etc., it sees this layer is tagged as > conductive and includes it in whatever its doing, ignoring the fact > that it is also silk. When the code is putting out the silkscreen, it > notices this layer is tagged as silk and puts it out, ignoring that it > is also a conductive layer.
You can always tell the board house to use copper minus soldermask as silk. > > Jared -- Stephan _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
