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.
