DJ
I think your symbol looks like a good compromise between readability and
density. I've ended up with some large symbols that are about equally
compact (FPGAs, uprocessors etc.).
You hit on something that has annoyed me in the past - that the text
doesn't always seem to line up nicely. My vote would be to use a
completely non-proportional font in gschem. At least for things like
pin names, pin numbers, attributes. Generic text could be handled as it
is now. Just my $0.022.
Joe T
DJ Delorie wrote:
[other list ;]
Ok, I did some edits to my cs8900a symbol to try some of the ideas
from John and some from me. Specifically:
1. Pins for busses are 200 mils spacing instead of 400 mils.
2. Multiple power pins for the same power net share one label.
3. Pin numbers are aligned via the corner closest to the pin, 100 mils
from the symbol edge and 50 mils from the pin (this leaves enough
room for inversion bubbles).
I also tossed in overbars for inverted signals, to see how it works.
Sadly, without gschem support for aligning the ends of the bars with
the symbol name, the ends don't line up since the strings don't end on
perfect grid boundaries.
Comparison - left is the symbol built with official gEDA rules, right
is John's compact symbol, the middle one is my compromise:
http://www.delorie.com/pcb/size-compare.html
new symbol:
http://www.delorie.com/pcb/cs8900a.html
Feedback?
