X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:08:06 -0400
Message-Id: <201407061708.s66H86a8022645@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <53B965BE.6040303@sonic.net> (message from Dave Curtis on Sun, 06
	Jul 2014 08:05:34 -0700)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] pour clearing around pads
References: <53B8CC66 DOT 2080909 AT sonic DOT net> <201407060516 DOT s665GVb3027395 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <53B965BE DOT 6040303 AT sonic DOT net>
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
Precedence: bulk


> Is there a reliable way to validate that zero-width pads are usable?

Code review.

> 1. Draw a Pad[] with zero width, but with clearance/mask set create 
> desired relief.
> 2. Give the Pad[] a pin number that is *not* used in the part, that way 
> it will not show up in the netlist and cause rat/routing/connectivity 
> confusion.

I suspect that a zero-width pad is still "a pad" according to parts of
the code, so it will still block traces and cause shorts despite being
zero-width.