[dha010]

Dear Ronald,

 

Yes, I can see there are benefits to using polygons rather than polylines, and I am not trying to argue the case for general use of polylines instead.

I’ve had a look at the Interconnects.py methods. They do not return a set of points, rather parameters that define the geometry. However implementing some functions that parse the parameters and spits out the required list of points should not be too much work I think. Or as you say, modifying the mask_elements methods could also be a solution.

Thanks for the help!

DAniel

[dha010]

Dear Ronald,

 

The only problem now is that as far as I can tell most other methods to create structures, like bends and curves etc. all seem to employ polygons rather than polylines.  I guess I’ll just have to make these myself then

 

thanks

[dha010]

Hi Ronald, thanks for the reply.

Indeed that does what i need, at least logically. However in the exported gds file, the output is still a polygon. I need to have the structure defined as a path in the gds file itself due to requirements for some processes by a foundry. As far as i can tell Nazca always uses polygons or boxes, and i am wondering if there is a way of changing that? Or some methods that do output paths?

See example at http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=90343711839218552542

In this case the upper structure is defined as a rectangle, while the lower one is defined as a path.

Daniel

[Author]

Posts