>>  I would suggest to drop
>>this feature completely. It is a relic from the times when a chip had a
>>power supply of 5V, and that was it.

Abd ul-Rahman wrote:

>The feature remains almost as useful as it ever was. Further, it should be
>considered that there is a huge base of legacy designs which would be
>wrecked if Protel no longer supported hidden pins. In addition, the
>to load OrCAD schematics would be trashed.
>*But* it would not be difficult to provide tools that would make the use
>hidden pins less hazardous, or the elimination of hidden pins in a design

On second thoughts, I agree. We tend to look at things under a point of
view which is mainly influenced by personal experience, and so do I. The
fact of not being able to use the standard library parts (mainly TTL)
without having to rework the power pins (unhide them and replace them to
some place where they can be wired manually  a n d  still result in a
readable schematic) is not really important for my kind of designs. As most
of my designs are processor boards with several different telecom parts
(framers, etc.) the percentage of parts I can take from a pre-defined
schematic library provided by Protel is less than 5%. This is not because I
don't like the way parts are defined in the Protel libraries - the parts I
need to place simply are not there. Parts I need to define myself never
have hidden power pins, and, I agree, it is usefull to define a special
part within a component definition which carries only power pins, and
another one, which shows possible no-connects.


Gisbert Auge
N.A.T. GmbH

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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