On Apr 20, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Stefan Salewski wrote: > On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 10:34 -0700, Steven Michalske wrote: >> On Apr 20, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Stefan Salewski wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 12:06 +0200, Stephan Boettcher wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> - use the 3-pin footprint and connect pin three with a net= >>>> attribute >>>> on the symbol >>>> >>> >>> This idea in not new to me, I tried something similar with an OpAmp >>> with >>> multiple power pins -- now i prefer a special footprint. >>> >>> I have 8 of these variable capacitors (8 and 10mm diameter), so I >>> have >>> to give the first symbol a net attribute like "net=CapVarNetA:1,3" >>> the >>> next "net=CapVarNetB:1,3" the next "net=CapVarNetC:1,3" then next... >>> >>> A gschem pin which can have multiple pinnumbers may be a nice >>> solution? >>> >> >> I like the idea of a delimited list of pins for a pin. >> > > I too. > >> I dislike the net attribute, is seems like a hack and doesn't allow >> for changes easily. changing the net name of the net feeding that >> pin >> won't be quite what you want. >> > > I think the same. > >> My solution for this problem is to make a new symbol, and explicitly >> place all pins. >> >> > > No. A capacitor with 3 pins in a schematic? > Just because some devices have 3 pins for technical reasons? I think a > symbol in a schematic should be abstract, and a capacitor is a two pin > device from its physics. > > I started with special footprints with pin 3 renamed to 1, DJ suggests > this too, so I go on using it. The only minor problem is, that I > have to > keep my footprints sorted, I have to care that I newer use such a > modified footprint when I really need 3 pins, i.e. for a > potentiometer. > My current solution: Have general 3 pin devices, with a local (not > public) copy with pin 3 renamed to 1. I was not able to find a nice > name > to this modified copy, so I append @2. This should remember me. Now I > have true three pin devices named i.e. > TRIM_TB_3N_1000D__Sprague-Goodman_Spec-1.fp > and the special, local copy named > [email protected] >
Until gEDA can handle the fact that one electrically connected pin represents multiple physical pins in without overloading an attribute not meant for it, I will use a symbol with three terminals. This is also due to the fact that not all designs want both pins connected, yes a corner case, but still valid. I agree that the schematic should be symbolic, but multi pin/net needs some help. I believe there was an extensive thread about this where we discussed pin groups and the like, but nothing came to fruition. > Best regards > > Stefan Salewski > > > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-user mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
