> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, 16 February 2001 16:42
> To: Multiple recipients of list proteledausers
> Subject: Re: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Sheet entries don't need a matching
> port to connect nets?

[snip]

> 
> Of course forge ahead with whatever works for you this is just my 3
> cents ...
> 

Woah there tiger, that was a bit more than 3 cents' worth! But useful
nonetheless...

> Dennis Saputelli
>  


I guess all I was originally trying to point out was that (one of) the
reason(s) you put forward as to why to not use hierarchical designs is not
unique to that methodology. Agreed that whatever rocks your boat is the way
to go; for the majority of my designs, for better or for worse, it happens
that it's easiest to use a hierarchical design. I've gotten so used to it
that all my designs are now like this. 

I find the biggest advantage of having hierarchical designs is when
delivering a "black-box" to colleagues, especially those with little
interest in the internals ("the software guy"). All my top-most designs have
a sheet with all the connectors, and that's all. I find this is a good
paradigm for working, since if you want more detail you can zoom in, if not
you are satisfied with this view (which shows all external-world
connections). Admittedly this is quite hard the first few times, and will
probably take a little longer to do initially, but in my job the specs are
always changing as different needs arise, so the initial investment in time
almost always pays off and then some. 

But then, not everybody has my job, and whatever works for you is no doubt
good for you.

Cheers,
MvdW


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to