On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 21:06 +0000, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:03:31 +0000, Peter Clifton wrote: > > >> Why not change the workflow so that during schematic capture, there are > >> no pin numbers anywhere? "Pins" on symbols get assigned a physical pin > >> number during some some later step, at the same time that footprints > >> are selected. And then a backwards data flow brings the pin > >> assignments back to gschem for display? Of course, I really have > >> little idea of the implications of what I'm saying... > > > > I agree whole-heartedly, to the extent - that pinnumber information > > should not be present until you've selected a part to use. (or slot of a > > part). > > I assume, your rewrite will still allow to print pinnumbers in the > finished schematic. This is really useful when debugging circuits with > slotted.
Certainly, that was the intention. (Not that this work is likely to happen for the next year or so!!) The issue which is somewhat tricky is how to place the numbers - assuming they didn't exist in the symbol to start with. We'd have to get our auto-placement heuristics out, either that, or leave place-holders in the symbols. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
