[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>FWIW, it has always seemed to me that a solution lies in the fact that a >surface mount pad is essentially just a fill. If it is acceptable for >the PCB routing to be dominated by the thru-hole pad, then loss of "pad" >status for the tandemed "virtual" surface mount pad would not be of any >functional merit. This means that one could create a component >incorporating both rule-based thru-hole pads and surface mount features >(not single-layer pads...) that functionally act as surface mount pads, >then what's the harm? > > I think the problem here would be that you'd also have to manually define the paste mask, as only SMT pads normally get a matching paste mask object. If you remember to do this on the PCB lib component, then it ought to work. Jon ____________________________________________________________ You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum To Post messages: mailto:[email protected] Unsubscribe and Other Options: http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004): http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
