On Feb 3, 2010, at 7:53 AM, Vanessa Ezekowitz wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:47:19 -0500
> Ethan Swint <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 02/03/2010 03:33 AM, timecop wrote:
>>>> At the very least, it seems that there should be a way to specify that
>>>> "any" pin with the same number satisfies the connection.
>>> fairly ridiculous assumption especially with ICs, many of which
>>> specifically say something like "all GND/VCC pads must be connected".
>>>
>> In which case, the pins have unique numbers, if not names.
>
<snip>
> Routing signals through those internal connections would have been no issue
> at all, though I wouldn't have thought to actually do so in the projects in
> question (and adding the extra copper to satisfy the netlist was no big deal).
I imagine that's often the case. With a switch matrix, however, it can be a
huge help in eliminating crossings.
>
> To that end, if I had to make a suggestion, it would be if the component
> can't handle the possibility of signals flowing through its internal
> connections (unsafe, won't work, etc.), then the footprint should get unique
> pin numbers and the existing policy should apply.
That also seems correct to me, but I haven't gone on a thorough hunt for
counter-examples.
>
> Otherwise, give each of the pins in an electrically-connected set the same
> number, and PCB should simply assume they're electrically equivalent. PCB
> should also further assume that connecting two such pins together with a
> copper trace does not violate the netlist.
>
Yup.
<snip>
>
> ("Yeah, that's fine Vanessa, but who's going to write all the code to
> implement it?" :-) )
The $64 question. Somebody that is familiar with the code will have to comment
on the scale of this effort.
-dave
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
