X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=yxI29JF9S6FHoPAQXyl14E6AvjKUAv/jO/1ufzaQQN8=;
	b=dxD026xWq/ZsQYiUkDgFw4FNSxPLGHaqiPKgGvN/7wC/KF0WrWvOO3Q7xqbm3rEvKV
	ELq6k84M694V6W7x2RSdk/roZDEWWY2miu1tS4V/Xp7ZuSY867w1s02V7QEFL/FY6ZYQ
	nAx/zc0YtTApEsNjeEVSSaFeMh9u/FcXkRhzcHNKpjksS4TVZmtFBDPal/d7SZ48HuOG
	3cFV+DjdlSAKEmIcm/6zXI1k0kilwbox3sEFqHcdwpkWrgfwvTwCwXCahZcJKdJbJcyC
	pPMz0QXTexZQjJskaepkbmHN3I5MxcGi7WO2lqDIU2pXUiulKA+56xC60O7f6J4nz1/w
	GJxw==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.180.87.33 with SMTP id u1mr600146wiz.34.1370311790190; Mon,
	03 Jun 2013 19:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Mon, 3 Jun 2013 22:09:50 -0400
Message-ID:	<CACPio-40yfJCuEQSnmMYC_1zEEwZYSoRWJhJyhB_D86gKgi_Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	[geda-user] move elements to other side
From:	Nathan Stewart <therealnathanstewart AT gmail DOT com>
To:	"geda-user AT delorie DOT com" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

--f46d044402b07c67b804de4a9391
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I noticed today while working with some sublayouts, that move to other side
explicitly moves elements only, not traces or vias. (Yes, vias... wait for
it)

Is this due to disagreement about what "move to other side implies for
layers and vias? It seems obvious to me - a collection of selected traces,
elements, and vias should move elements as currently implemented. Whatever
else occurs with layers, selected traces and vias should be reflected
together.

I can see room for discussion about handling of layers. Say there are four
layers of traces on two physical layers. Because layers is not just a
physical concept - there is room for ambiguity here. It could be three
layers on one group, and one one the other group. What happens if there
isn't a corresponding layer?

It seems to me that components are a group which must correspond to
outermost physical planes. So we already have a concept of two sided
layers. Solder mask, silk, and elements all behave this way. Could we not
just treat all layers like this? O, perhaps all layers in external groups?

I'm sure I'm overlooking some aspect of multilayer boards here. But if we
can reach agreemen on what should happen, this looks like a reasonable
doable chunk.

--f46d044402b07c67b804de4a9391
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>I noticed today while working with some sub=
layouts, that move to other side explicitly moves elements only, not traces=
 or vias. (Yes, vias... wait for it)<br><br></div>Is this due to disagreeme=
nt about what &quot;move to other side implies for layers and vias? It seem=
s obvious to me - a collection of selected traces, elements, and vias shoul=
d move elements as currently implemented. Whatever else occurs with layers,=
 selected traces and vias should be reflected=A0 together. <br>
<br></div>I can see room for discussion about handling of layers. Say there=
 are four layers of traces on two physical layers. Because layers is not ju=
st a physical concept - there is room for ambiguity here. It could be three=
 layers on one group, and one one the other group. What happens if there is=
n&#39;t a corresponding layer? <br>
<br></div><div>It seems to me that components are a group which must corres=
pond to outermost physical planes. So we already have a concept of two side=
d layers. Solder mask, silk, and elements all behave this way. Could we not=
 just treat all layers like this? O, perhaps all layers in external groups?=
 <br>
<br></div><div>I&#39;m sure I&#39;m overlooking some aspect of multilayer b=
oards here. But if we can reach agreemen on what should happen, this looks =
like a reasonable doable chunk. <br></div></div>

--f46d044402b07c67b804de4a9391--

- Raw text -