kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Tomasz Wlostowski <tomasz.wlostowski@xxxxxxx>]

On 04.06.2014 17:31, jp charras wrote:
> Le 04/06/2014 12:13, Tomasz Wlostowski a écrit :

> > What would be the issue to add them to the sexpr file formats, that are
> > meant to be extensible?
>
> First of all, my response was related to the current work on footprint
> libraries refactor.

Hi Jean-Pierre,

What is the status of this work? Is there any plan/blueprint publicly 
available?
> It is not related to the CERN work package 4, which is an other thing.
>
> I agree the number of layers (both copper layers and non copper layers)
> must be increased.
>
> With the current layers, one cannot add a courtyard info (a new layer +
> courtyard data) without breaking the compatibility with current Pcbnew
> version (including stable version).

We are very happy to hear that compatibility with stable Kicad versions 
is gaining importance.

How about modifying the PCB parser to produce warnings for designs that 
contain layers unsupported by this particular version (same for new 
object types, such as arcs on copper layers, diff pairs, polygons in 
footprints, etc.)?

> The main work is to add the code in modedit to add/edit polygons in
> footprints (they are supported currently, because they are used to
> create logos by bitmap2component, but there is no tool to edit them).
> this is certainly 90% of the work.
OK.

> The DRC code to test courtyards intersection is very basic and is made
> in zone management.
We do have DRC improvements in our pipeline. I'm sorry to say that, but 
the current DRC is not acceptable for us: for example zone clearance is 
ensured by refilling zones every time the DRC is run. DRC is a check, it 
must not modify anything on the board. I would schedule courtyard 
checking after the new DRC engine is implemented.


> Yes, good idea, I fully agree.
> Note: for layers renaming, this is currently possible for copper layers.
> for non copper layers this was possible, but due to many issues we had
> due to this renaming, it was removed.

I meant just the display name, not anything that defines the structure 
of PCB/footprint files or the purpose of the layer.

BTW. I don't understand why layer sets are stored using layer names 
instead of IDs in the sexpr file format. Moreover, different footprints 
often use inconsistent naming schemes.

Looking at demos/video.kicad_pcb file, there are modules that use French 
layer names:
(layers Cuivre Dessous.Pate Dessous.Masque)
as well as the standard English ones or a mix of both:
(layers *.Cu *.Mask Dessus.SilkS)

Since layer IDs are constant, why use names (that can be modified by the 
user) to define the set of layers spanned by an item?

Is there any practical reason for that (other than serving a small 
fraction of users who wish to hand-edit the files)?

Regards,
Tom