Ian,
I only shuddered a little! <g> I don't mind complexity if the benefit justifies it.
And being able to manage component & net classes from SCH wouldn't have to add (much)
complexity. We already have those classes & ways of editing them -- we just need to
be able to get to them from SCH, which (as you pointed out) would make a great deal of
sense.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 4:17 PM
<snip>
...It is often
useful to be able to document the design in the Sch. In HV, analog/RF and
high speed digital design it is common that layout rules and constraints
are known at the sch design stage - so why wait until starting the PCB to
set these?
Thinking this through further but not spending too much time on it, it
would be great to be able to create and manage component and net classes
within Sch and then be able to use those to set layout rules.
As with any complex idea like this there are a number of problems that
would need to be thought through such as how well can synchronisation be
supported in both directions.
I suspect my view of Sch makes some others worry about the complexity ...
(Dwight, you must be shuddering).
Bye for now,
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]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
