On 8/2/2016 11:55 AM, Maciej Sumiński wrote: > Sure, anything that does not require creating new power symbols manually > is a great idea. > > If I get it correctly, now we cannot simple change a power component > value because there is always a hidden pin that has the same name as the > component, and it cannot be changed from the schematics editor level. > With the new file format we can quickly create a custom instance with > the required value, but right now we need to store a new symbol in a > library.
That is pretty much it the way I see it. Once you can create an instance of a symbol in the schematic, you can edit it in place without having to worry about the library being available. > > On 08/02/2016 05:46 PM, Chris Pavlina wrote: >> Or, how about a custom "component selector" that implements the "select >> appropriate symbol based on net name, place it, rename it to the selected >> net" workflow? It can sit under the P hotkey in place of the filtered >> selection we have now. >> >> On Aug 2, 2016 11:43 AM, "Maciej Sumiński" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 08/02/2016 05:30 PM, Chris Pavlina wrote: >>>> Moving this to a new thread. >>>> >>>>> On 8/2/2016 7:16 AM, Chris Pavlina wrote: >>>>>> My implementation had a large number of symbols, would have allowed >>>>>> user-supplied arbitrary symbols if I had finished it, and automatically >>>>>> selected a symbol based on net name _exactly_ as Clemens suggested. All >>>>>> of these issues are solved. >>>>> >>>>> How difficult would it be to apply the same selection criteria for power >>>>> symbols? The more you explain what you have done with power label the >>>>> more it seems like you could have done the same thing with power >>>>> symbols. This would save implementing a new object and the file >>>>> formatting to support it. Maybe I'm missing something here but I just >>>>> don't see how a new label type that looks like a power symbol is >>>>> different from a power symbol that already provides the same >>> functionality. >>>> >>>> It provides the same functionality. I just think it's more consistent >>>> from the user's perspective - see my comment earlier about them /being/ >>>> labels, functionally speaking - and not that much more trouble to >>>> implement. >>> >>> Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be a tool that generates arbitrary >>> power symbols that are stored in a project library (a la *rescue.lib)? >>> Currently that is what user is expected to do when (s)he needs to place >>> a new voltage source, though it is a bit tedious. I suppose it will be >>> even easier and less hacky with the new file format, where one can store >>> instances of modified symbols. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Orson >>> >>> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
