On 8/22/2017 5:33 PM, Thomas Langås wrote: > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Wayne Stambaugh <stambau...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm not opposed to this change. However, there are two schools of >> thought when it comes to board layout: strict layout constraints and no >> layout constraints. I tend to lean towards the latter but I've been >> doing this for 30 years so I am painfully aware of the pitfalls of no >> layout constraints and have a pretty good idea of what not to do. >> Should we choose to loosen the layout constraints for blind/buried vias, >> then we should be prepared for a serious tongue lashing the first time >> someone violates their board vendor's manufacturing limitations and ends >> up with a bunch of useless and likely expensive boards. Maybe at some >> point in the future we will have a complete constraint system that can >> cover all possibilities but until then we have to walk that fine line >> between power users and beginners. > > > Is there a good reason why not to build this by rulesets, and allow > people to define > their own rulesets within KiCAD. You can have a sensible default rule > that covers > the 80-90%, and allow the people who know more about this and what they need > just remove the default rule and add their own advanced rules?
I believe this would require some major refactoring of the Pcbnew internals to handle constraints. The current design is rather ad-hoc and would be difficult to extend. > > Of course, this would imply that without any rules at all, it's just > willy nilly and > everything allowed. But isn't that the way design rules should be? If you > want > to try ice skating down a mountain, it might not be smart, but it's your own > choice ;-) > > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
