X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
From:	Kevin Redon <ml AT mail DOT tsaitgaist DOT info>
To:	geda-user <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] square clearance
In-reply-to:	<201309171649.r8HGn174009713@envy.delorie.com>
References:	<1379435002-sup-1363 AT dennou> <201309171649 DOT r8HGn174009713 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:27:33 +0200
Message-Id:	<1379488984-sup-7784@dennou>
User-Agent:	Sup/0.14.1
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id r8I7Rwio000532
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

Excerpts from DJ Delorie's message of 2013-09-17 18:49:01 +0200:
> 
> The clearance logic is designed for manufacturability, not general
> keep-outs, so there's no way to specify arbitrary (or even just
> square) clearances around pads.

Aren't square clearances manufacturable?
Maybe having square clearance for square pads might still be a good idea (independently of the keep-out problem).
What would be the pros/cons, before I try to implement it?

- Raw text -