X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:59:39 +1200
From:	Lilith Bryant <dark141 AT gmail DOT com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] pour clearing around pads
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To:	<1404869573.3730.30.camel@pcjc2lap> (from pcjc2@cam.ac.uk on
	Wed Jul 9 13:32:53 2014)
X-Mailer:	Balsa 2.5.1-79-g9697477
Message-Id:	<1404871179.750.51@zotlet.(none)>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id s69204FB030178
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 2014-07-09 01:32:53 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
> Bloating a convex part of the polygon (after shrinking) will also
> introduce rounded corners, not necessarily an issue - but also not
> necessarily what people might want, or expect. Certainly it would be a
> break from what we currently expect.

Ah, yes sorry. I didn't consider the corner rounding effect.

But, it could be argued that ANY sharp corner is a DRC violation.
i.e. if you measure across the corner diagonally, you've got a measurement less 
that the min copper width.

i.e. if a 90 degree corner is ok, and a 5 degree "spike" corner certainly isn't,  then 
where's the line in the sand?  <90 is bad, >=90 is ok?  Or maybe 85 degrees to
cope with not-quite square polygons????

I don't think it's the end of the road for this idea, explicit corners could be 
re-squared off, but I accept that this is getting complex fast.

I'm not bothered about corner rounding personally, but I can see why it would be 
a problem for some uses.   So I will probably be writing a python tool for myself 
(and anyone else) to bake'n'round polygons.   Now that I've figured out how it could 
be done.  Clearly just too many issues to have it in the core.

- Raw text -