From a2877358a57c40e2fd35622cf7a2377b274057a8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Matthias Koefferlein
-Like width and space, the separation check also supports the "without_touching" option. +Like width and space, the separation check also supports the "without_touching_corners" option.
This option will turn off errors that arise due to -collinear edges touching in one corner (the "kissing corners" configuration). +edges touching in one corner (the "kissing corners" configuration). By default, such edges will yield an error, as they form a zero-distance situation. With this option in place, no errors will be reported.
-The following images illustrate the effect of the "without_touching" option. +The following images illustrate the effect of the "without_touching_corners" option. The white line at the top of the bottom red shape is actually an edge pair indicating the zero-distance violation of the separation check:
@@ -2914,16 +2914,16 @@ the zero-distance violation of the separation check:
-Another option is "without_coincident" which turns off errors that arise +Another option is "without_touching_edges" which turns off errors that arise at coincident edges. Formally such edges represent a zero-distance situation, hence are flagged by default. Turning off the check in this case can be helpful when separating a layer into two parts (e.g. thin/wide metal separation) and an error between touching regions is not desired.
-The "without_coincident" option is a stronger version of "without_touching" and +The "without_touching_edges" option is a stronger version of "without_touching_corners" and makes sense only for two-layer checks.
-The following images illustrate the effect of the "without_coincident" option: +The following images illustrate the effect of the "without_touching_edges" option:
| Ww_>1HwRR6oC^(l2$-Kr_>QP#PYC^NQuj$r)ZVD5>nxz6nKThRE-S#48FyNd
ztyE&^{wbzs<0ymnxRXfX$?k5>YgmelCeeD+v1CdmCA8i?#Lk}dkOI5@qRA35);(>1
zJbbHXXpW})6vIvb>atv% |