On 06:02 PM 14/03/2001 -0800, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said:

>At 10:04 AM 3/15/01 +1100, Ian Wilson wrote:
>>Personally, I would mark *all* parts of my multi-part components as must 
>>place.  This ensures spare gates etc are visible and any floating inputs 
>>are detected.
>Note that my suggested tool, "Place unused parts of multi-part 
>components," would satisfy both needs. The tool might put such parts on 
>the cursor, in succession, until all unused parts had been placed.

I am missing something - I think.

Satisfy both of which needs? Are you saying that a process that a user may 
or may not run (Place unused parts of multi-part components) would make 
unnecessary the capacity for ERC to actually check if the parts were placed 
(my original suggestion).

If the library symbol was able to flag an error if one or more special 
parts (sections) were not in the design then this allows ERC to catch the 
error.  ERC is currently not very good at catching errors of omission 
(floating inputs and power pins only basically).

Your suggested process makes it easier to fix the error once it occurs and 
to prevent the error in the first place but it can't guarantee that the 
error gets noticed.

My comment about flagging all parts of a symbol as "must place" is purely 
so I get an error if I leave a section of a multi-part off the 
schematic.  Since my designs show all parts of all sch symbols I would want 
to know if any section was missing - even if it is completely benign.

I repeat:
Your proposed process improves my workflow but it does nothing to check the 
quality of my work.
My proposed change to the library attributes and the ERC allow the quality 
of my work to be checked but do nothing to improve my workflow.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To join or leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
*                      - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
* Contact the list manager:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to