kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/11/2012 08:07 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 11:13 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>>
>> *Observations:*
>>
>>> a) Layernames should be in English always (in a footprint, not a board).
>>
>>
>> Once we go down this path, we can never change the English default layer names without
>> maintaining support for the current spelling of the ones you see now.
> I knew this had the potential to be an issue when I designed the new 
> file format.  I am not opposed to going back to a hexadecimal bit mask 
> for layer definition.  Now would be the time to do it before we make the 
> new file format the default.  We would be trading human readability and 
> potentially unlimited layers (I'm not sure that is important) for a 
> smaller file size, faster layer parsing, and easier maintenance.  There 
> are sound arguments for both designs.  Internally Pcbnew layers are 
> still bit masks so the number of layers are limited to the integer size. 
>   Any move to a layer stack would require major changes.  It does seem 
> that a hexadecimal bit mask is more appropriate given our current 
> design.  We can always move from a 32 bit to a 64 bit layer mask when 
> users start requesting more copper layers.
>
> Wayne


The layering *order* in pcbnew is questionable, and something I've been arguing to change
for 4 years.  Therefore the hexadecimal numbering scheme is more likely to become obsolete
than is a well thought out English layer name.

I also don't think you have a speed problem parsing layer names.  We can get an
improvement using std::string in stead of wxString for the hashtable.   There's not a lot
of point in converting to wxString before doing compares or hash functions.   But this is
MINOR.

When I load a *.kicad_pcb file now, it loads at about the same speed as a legacy load on
the same *large* board.

We do not have a problem.  I am in favor of staying with the current game plan, although
would be open to another look at English layer name *spellings*, NOW.   Personally the
spellings seem clear, but I am not certain about conciseness, but don't take that as an
objection to current conciseness.   Practically, we may already be past the point where
they can be changed without disruption.


Dick