Kai-Martin Knaak <[email protected]> writes: > Stephan Boettcher wrote: > >> You need to invent some 2-pin symbol with some special attributes, and >> teach the pcb gnetlist backend(s) to interpret those attributes > ^^^ > > If there is a way to mark two net-names as physically the same net, > then each and every backend should act accordingly. It would be an > invitation for nasty surprises if some back-ends would support the > fusion and others don't. This calls for an interpretation by the > frontend.
Sure, as soon as the semantics have been fleshed out, the implementation should move into the gnetlist library of helper functions, so that all backends that do not care about separate attibutes of net segments can use it. And the other backends (none yet, but John claims he has use cases) will grow a helper function that provides nets as a topology of net segments. Unless we talk about the current gnetlist, which does not support this kind of semantic splits :-( -- Stephan _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
