X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=Kfb9ZmAJDgv8LndMrneZzozs0nJWEd8IXisqdKFLnCM=;
	b=Q5pXQB+Afhit8OD35iVkf789ZErkPXQruzqXN+fFxEZQWeQm18x0fKM/s0GjnbrJEj
	QhAOuKFc9lSwz/s0ttXyruzl7BMwRXQLFFwE65nkSnQr+VYtHDM2WWv5gUBLPMYt4Zqx
	xDe4kk9VDv9iMix/09V4p6kWrfgyAqbjteQQ91WbBTpJsmS5P0tIupSVGCoj044CsMN+
	Szv3YrOq38J6ROBCEeGws2QWnSnLon1/jDMnCHUetOJUrpAimANYP7yJDdT/W9DhnPqZ
	4ong43coTgDBAFcppsSirixsWNYQkhW8Io8uOu4epq6UUSqlFwXj/sg7Inwt0tYQqQCA
	SDDw==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.28.48.131 with SMTP id w125mr37263831wmw.18.1451185844447;
	Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:10:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<20151226214713.61c9396af946d08bcdbac081@gmail.com>
References:	<CAC4O8c9zz3X9K-E4fAwjKEdLjNiSLo6FTObDo7vbCm+0yb6ipg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20151226214713 DOT 61c9396af946d08bcdbac081 AT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Sat, 26 Dec 2015 18:10:44 -0900
Message-ID:	<CAC4O8c9hUX4tEYWyimDVtuTprTxDMKJStu7LgV+5PEw7tod5rw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] using DRC for other clearance values -- probably a
	bad idea
From:	"Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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

--001a114242a4c2f2960527d888ae
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Nicklas Karlsson (
nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <
geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> > I previously said existing DRC could be used for this.  Unfortunately I
> > guess that for cases where larger clearances are desired, it's often
> > because of electromagnetic considerations, which means that it's probably
> > really an inter-layer requirement, which means existing DRC code would
> not
> > be useful.  Sorry.
> >
> > Britton
>
> Are they allowed to come close to each other on different layers? Or not?
>

There is no inter-layer bloat, everything is done in-plane (though
connection checks follow vias, of course).  So the existing DRC code has no
chance of enforcing emag clearance requirements, and your original idea of
simply examining features pairwise is more applicable.  However, that's
actually mostly a sub-case of a general keep-out mechanism which is
probably something pcb wants as well (or perhaps there are already ways of
doing this that I'm not aware of).

Britton

>
>
> Nicklas Karlsson
>

--001a114242a4c2f2960527d888ae
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Nicklas Karlsson (<a href=3D"mailto:n=
icklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com">nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com</a>) [via <a href=
=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] <span dir=3D"l=
tr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com" target=3D"_blank">geda-use=
r AT delorie DOT com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">&gt; I previously said existing DRC coul=
d be used for this.=C2=A0 Unfortunately I<br>
&gt; guess that for cases where larger clearances are desired, it&#39;s oft=
en<br>
&gt; because of electromagnetic considerations, which means that it&#39;s p=
robably<br>
&gt; really an inter-layer requirement, which means existing DRC code would=
 not<br>
&gt; be useful.=C2=A0 Sorry.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Britton<br>
<br>
</div></div>Are they allowed to come close to each other on different layer=
s? Or not?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div style=3D"">There is no inter=
-layer bloat, everything is done in-plane (though connection checks follow =
vias, of course).=C2=A0 So the existing DRC code has no chance of enforcing=
 emag clearance requirements, and your original idea of simply examining fe=
atures pairwise is more applicable.=C2=A0 However, that&#39;s actually most=
ly a sub-case of a general keep-out mechanism which is probably something p=
cb wants as well (or perhaps there are already ways of doing this that I&#3=
9;m not aware of).</div><div style=3D""><br></div><div style=3D"">Britton</=
div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
Nicklas Karlsson<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>

--001a114242a4c2f2960527d888ae--

- Raw text -