Stefan Salewski wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:33 -0700, Joerg wrote: > >> That makes hardcore analog stuff very hard to understand. > > But you can do it with current gEDA: Put the functional symbol and the > corresponding power symbol close together. The same refdes indicate that > they belong together. There is not really a need that the power pins are > attached to the functional (slot) symbol. >
That's how it is often done in Eagle. But I always butt up the power symbol against the A-slot part for parts that have them separate. Eagle calls power symbols up via an "invoke" command. One reason why it is best to have them affixed to the A-part is that power pins are often used like input pins, for example to provide amplitude modulation. It's a very different world :-) The main problem with gschem isn't the schematic itself but what happens after auto-numbering: All refdeses blown away, parts that need to remain on a common chip scattered all over the place. That's what often doesn't work in analog, and you need auto-numbering on large schematics. IIRC Peter Clifton had once said that this may not be as easy to fix as it looks. Just like Cadsoft seems to have a hard time with hierarchical sheet structures (which gschem handles nicely). -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
