On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joerg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, I thought about that, having generic opamp blocks and scooting a > pair of "floating" power pins over the first instantiation of a two- or > four-pack. That is how it's done in Eagle if you don't want to create a > new symbol (make a part with implicit power explicit). But Eagle keeps > all that together because it formally belongs to the same part.
That's what my abstract-symbols fork does: remembers that they belong together. I'm busy merging that stuff into my more recent master-shadow. I haven't touched it since winter so there'll be a lot of conflicts to resolve, which will keep me busy for a while. > In > gschem you'd have to design a separate power pair for pretty much every > part that has more than one slot. Can be done but kind of messy. Not on my fork: you can have one power pair symbol that you use for all parts that have such a pair of power pins. I'll try and hack up a nicer example than just the static flipflop I already have. If you're willing to build the fork from source and are interested, let me know. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
