On May 7, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Bill Gatliff wrote: > Stefan Salewski wrote: >> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 12:58 -0600, John Doty wrote: >> >> >>> From my perspective, your use of these symbols to name nets seems >>> strange. I think of these as hierarchical connection devices. To >>> name >>> a net it is simpler and less confusing to use the netname= attribute >>> rather than a symbol, I think. But it is again unclear what these >>> symbols were intended for by their original authors. >>> > > Maybe, but having the little symbol there is more conventional with > other schematic diagrams I've seen over the years.
That's precisely how busses work: there's a little symbol (busripper-1) that goes on the end of a net. It has the responsibility of graphically terminating a net, but with graphical=1 it is otherwise ignored. The name is attached to the net segment with netname=, it is not defined by the bus ripper. Any graphic with the properties of busripper-1 can serve here: it needn't attach to a bus. But I tend to group off-sheet connections in busses anyway, and use hierarchy to minimize the need. > > > b.g. > > -- > Bill Gatliff > [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-user mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user > John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [email protected] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
