DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> writes: >> I don't want to end up with the current state that some 'specialy >> named' layers receive special treatment. > >>From a practical standpoint, I think it makes sense to have a fast way > to scan for layers of some high-level type, as well as further typing > them by name.
I do not agree with the term high level here. I agree that there may be layers of different types, that require special treatment. These are low-level types, like "conductive" for layers that electrically connect things, or "holes" for connections between layers, and "other" for anything else. What kind of high-performance processing is needed in addition to that? Well, when you figure out that there is something else, it's a good justification to add anothe type. At the storage data level they are still all layers with attributes. When loading the layout, they are collected into separate lists, or get a binary attribute attached, by enumerating known values of the attribute "pcb:type=" > My original design had an enumerated type for each drawing layer, that > was one of (for example) "copper, silk, soldermask, paste, outline, > other" with flags for "normal, inverted" and an assignment to a > physical layer (1..N). > > That way, when you're doing something compute-intensive like > connectivity checks for "auto-enforce drc clearance" you aren't doing > a bazillion string compares. > > Actions that are performed less often, like mapping a footprint to an > element, can use a more open-ended string-attribute with more complex > rules. -- Stephan _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user