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=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=3IFUPZbfKzgfFt0hgMpyZZXo6ywTa8cWPgVQQkREqUw=;
	b=T++5ZTM5Op9ND+h9/nPJFcr/Ev3Ov8/09283/dE/I8Jj53x3ZSNZa5Kp4xtBEAcGDI
	q9Jo8oFJ7huihpKl1jGxOAHfcN92gksOeiJZv99P1S94pnCFJvjauyeS2iQGID6mxdNP
	IY6BMVwxCmUr0DR4T7eIYE+EMXuWY+hVFLFWnpp3qxn7aNHrglqhIZ4Dq5kfbXWEn8L6
	KrerigOZQeHiPS9/BeXurc+t8UiV5dOw2HEXP5xb3gNLR+3eVrD6nyHvoEtWB9WlDJ0J
	w0J9gWClwgDRaOUhkaHNFG5u/l5yS+/wUnN2OWcge2BY9HuzrXCLfslg1SPEX7mfBOpB
	LAXA==
X-Received:	by 10.28.225.8 with SMTP id y8mr14450346wmg.98.1451212401597;
	Sun, 27 Dec 2015 02:33:21 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:33:16 +0100
From:	"Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] using DRC for other clearance values -- probably a
	bad idea
Message-Id:	<20151227113316.b2401441ec634de224120e8f@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:	<CAC4O8c9hUX4tEYWyimDVtuTprTxDMKJStu7LgV+5PEw7tod5rw@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAC4O8c9zz3X9K-E4fAwjKEdLjNiSLo6FTObDo7vbCm+0yb6ipg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20151226214713 DOT 61c9396af946d08bcdbac081 AT gmail DOT com>
	<CAC4O8c9hUX4tEYWyimDVtuTprTxDMKJStu7LgV+5PEw7tod5rw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version:	1.0
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

> > > 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

The hard problem I consider is:
  1. Calculate which drawing primitives intersect, hardest problem.
  2. Figure out which drawing primitives belong to the net probably need (1.).
  3. To some extent shape of the grown object or bloat as you call it.

There may be some problems to find the objects in the data but this is most probably only about good efficiency. I think code could be reused for the hardest problem the three points above.

To store the clearances for each net there need to be a list of clearance values to other nets. I think net classes may be implemented with a named "variable".


Nicklas Karlsson

- Raw text -