On 10:59 PM 22/05/2001 -0700, Dwight Harm said:
>I'd like the options for (a) warning if there are unplaced parts, and (b)
>include unplaced part pins as if placed (so the same rules would apply re
>unconnected inputs, etc.).
>
>I think the idea of an extended no-ERC marker has been discussed before,
>and I'd definitely like that -- being able to suppress a specific error
>condition.
>
>I don't want a full rules-based ERC -- I'm afraid the benefits wouldn't
>outweigh the increased complexity of maintaining them.
Dwight,
Have you any ideas how you might implement more specific no-ERC conditions
without it basically becoming rules based. I am thinking that there would
need to be some method of setting the rule not to test and the scope of
that should be applied. In some cases there might need to be multiple
no-ERCs applying to a single pin.
I would not really be happy with a noERC directive that simply had a number
of attributes that turned of specific errors. I am keen to have something
that allows me to say "these two outputs are allowed to short together but
all other outputs must stay away".
Any one got any comments on this?
Ian Wilson
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
