At 03:15 PM 4/9/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote:
>On 09:04 PM 8/04/2001 -0700, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax said:
>[...]
>>The point I am making is that if you want a bus line for clarity, by all 
>>means put one in. Thus this argument is seen to be misdirected:
>
>On a side note: slightly inflammatory words there -  "misdirected".  Your 
>post has a bit of a feel of lecturing about it.

So did the post to which I was responding, which does not justify my own 
rudeness. My apologies to all.

I'm still not convinced that actually associating nets to a named bus 
(rather than the mere graphical appearance of same) brings anything to the 
table. Essentially, if one does not show the subnets, the drawing is 
potentially confusing or misleading or unclear, and if one does show the 
subnets, then one might as well skip the named bus.

The argument was "misdirected," as I carelessly called it, because it 
appeared to presume that the only choices were a bus association of nets, 
or discrete wires or simple scattered net labels, which can be, I agree, 
difficult to decipher at a glance. But there is a third choice which is *at 
least* as functional, in my view, as bus association, without introducing 
new complications, which is to draw such a bus without actually creating a 
bus port.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433


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