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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i/VOlNPIEUzPLjfA8/h9qZp8Jpf026BvUtF3KHxbFDQ=; b=ZiB5+rmxjgKMUvfYff3qbWTzvsPq172u/vho8+lH+bI3WxR9KX5hDFn1Patn1EjfdK 5HDUJkV2Ppqgykt7CdVM1SPWjr51U4XtjESnZrC08hnumqIuqZfUFsy9ARB7ypYgVXJr fh6mu8AWYCRJM5Pcbr4w2cW9zWDJMHK5fNG3BSEy01OrxRcpsd7UE4zKMbihKuE/TBZx X+d7YxDHS0PJD8iWdqP/lVGSvdVesptc6g4e7/7fU2lHtogdPsBT90j2vg2n8hhWelI/ 5WqIIk3/FYXIymx2+X5W6HXSlVDtqcBJ4HL17OUhnS6LgrA8ydJ4f5lFbvQgUF7VdYVp 9X5g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i/VOlNPIEUzPLjfA8/h9qZp8Jpf026BvUtF3KHxbFDQ=; b=Wn7C5rJ0sTy2ZBCzI382wjJGWC+lJEepn14rjrQA1uMsHmgpY5pRJHrt30MaZRe3QY VZTsoUA4f0Bj8BEnl7BvwyMoIMj2+HTWlAxxh3HaBu+vwaKzlWfw822muBY6Itbh50pi QnalQUBR26vsGT6fIpS6D0xjhn0hFRaso9eSqKA74W75z+EKRZpydXewGzsCjVnxykQ5 w3d0TzIXVKrHfpozfw8HvV20240F+nH2mCCDmONSa7DuiN1DSKoEi1h9GyOm4VBRS4jw aWl7/slpMCEOUn9Z1PEVL0ts7gdoUcVnF5LNk5ljmNFwKYQJ2W0+cbeem48GMNhbOeIK qTNA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOST7mKvmKhrZwh3Tt8L8+v9aKVVOWE5TAV+b6tZmCIgENIiqlXDDhH2yQegBIfc4ToD9+JPmjqUylMRWw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.28.23.73 with SMTP id 70mr4949832wmx.37.1454014019748; Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:46:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201601261804 DOT u0QI4KEQ009550 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20160126233332 DOT dec2f06f5c74354a3841989c AT gmail DOT com> <20160127091746 DOT 1c7a976c2752f913921688ac AT gmail DOT com> <20160127141334 DOT c738feb9dbeb54a7dec3dff8 AT gmail DOT com> <56A8F74B DOT 8080304 AT ecosensory DOT com> <56A961BC DOT 3040405 AT ecosensory DOT com> <56A9E416 DOT 8080500 AT ecosensory DOT com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:46:59 -0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] The nature of gEDA layers From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id u0SKl66S028821 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 On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Stephan Böttcher wrote: > "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" > writes: > >> It's highly unlikely it'll be easier for just BBVias. I believe >> there's already an experimental branch that implements them. Igor is >> likely to decide to implement them again while we all talk about it. >> For containers to pay off several other applications for them would >> need to exist and be important enough to get implemented. What are >> they? > > My use cases for a mor egeneralized data model: > > - pad stacks, with differnet pad sizes on middle layers Everyone seems to want these, to be honest I don't understand what pads on middle layers are for. Not mounting components for sure. If it's just a node what's wrong with a trace or poly? > - hierarchical layout It can be done now... > - rigid-flex baords with more than two outer layers I've never done these. I guess the flexing connector layer is on top, but only where it exists so you can still have components on the layer below? There's still only one top layer at any given point? > To avoid more spagetti special casing in the future for all kinds of > use cases. I've just been through a lot of DRC and while it's true that e.g. geometrical tests could be concentrated in Union types or something, they're still gonna have to go somewhere and it wasn't that bad to find them as they are. Adding abstractions that aren't universally utilized doesn't necessarily make a code any more comprehensible, because sometimes-utilized abstractions are arguably more confusing than none at all. To justify things like containers on code-cleanliness grounds a big refactor effort is implied. Britton