On 3/21/2011 1:58 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: > > > 1)))))))))))))) > > Wayne, > > Any problems changing: > > (visible YES) > > to > > [visible] > > > Reasoning: > > I am looking for conciseness. This means having defaults do the right > thing, most of the time, so that they can be omitted from the expression. > > > My thinking for properties, is that most are not visible (this is debatable). > > This proposed is more concise, and defaults to non visible in the absence of > 'visible'.
Works for me. I will update the documentation to reflect this change. > > > 2))))))))))))))))) > > Jean-Pierre or anyone else, > > Anyone have and second thoughts on the need to continue with both a pin name > AND a pin number, going forward? I cannot remember why we need both. I guess this all depends on how footprint pads get mapped to component pins. If it's by number then we'll have keep the numbers around until the footprint pad mapping is fixed. I have no problem dropping numbers and using the pin names to map the footprint pads. Most people are probably more comfortable creating footprints using numbers rather than signal names so there may be some resistance to this change. Wayne > > > Thanks, > > > Dick > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
