On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 21:22 -0800, Dave N6NZ wrote: > I'm reposting this because the discussion died and I'd like to give > the topic a bump -- I think it needs some collective thought by the > group. > > It seems to me that we are missing a way to specify a connectivity > satisfaction rule for a particular pin number on a footprint. Right > now, pcb only considers the connectivity satisfied if "all" pins with > the same number are connected to the net in question. At the very > least, it seems that there should be a way to specify that "any" pin > with the same number satisfies the connection.
The above is no real problem for me. > I think there is also a second axis to this specification, and that is > whether or not the component contributes connectivity. For example, > in Ben's switch, the switch provides connectivity. If you want to > continue the net, it is valid to add a track to either pin -- there is > connectivity through the component. I can imagine components where > you can connect to "any" pin to satisfy connectivity to the component, > but where it violates the component spec to connect through it. Now, > in a practical sense, I'm willing to forgo this much smartness in pcb, > its a rare enough case I could check that manually. But I think > "through" connectivity is common enough (most any switch) that it is a > case that should be handled. The danger comes if you don't populate the switch. This then causes break in the board connectivity. I personally think such cases ought to be handled by making the connections explicit on the schematic - perhaps showing a two-pin through-connection on the switch symbol. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
