At 02:35 PM 11/07/01 -0700, you wrote:
>At 09:43 PM 7/11/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote:
>
>>Does sound like a bug - I will await other comments before adding it to
>>the bug database. I suppose someone will try to call it a feature...
>
>It's not a bug, in my opinion, but neither is it a feature. The lack of a
>facility is almost never a feature. Perhaps I missed something, but if I
>did not:
Your right - you did miss something. Look at the advanced options for Sch
Annotation. Observe the ability to automatically add a suffix, re-read the
original post and then consider whether it is a bug or not.
>In this case the facility that appears to be lacking is the ability to
>read the mind of the designer, or, stated more charitably, to know what
>kind of pattern to use when arranging complex designators.
Nope - it is just being asked to understand the pattern that *it* (the
original annotation process) applied. And that is (presumably) being
requested again when annotating the new parts.
>The annotation command only knows numbers to add, and it recognizes that a
>designator has been already used when what it would generate does not exist.
Nope - it knows how to restrict numbering to ranges and how to add a suffix.
>If the existing R6, for example, has been renamed R6A, and the annotator
>sees that R1-R5 have been used, and there is no R6, it will assign it. In
>the situation described, there is no R6, there is an R6A.
Nope - the original annotation added the 'A' - it should therefore not get
confused when you wish to annotate new parts later in the design process.
>You might very well want both. How is it to know otherwise?
Coz you asked for it in the Advanced options of the Annotate process.
>It was not stated how one wanted the annotator to assign new names, but
>the generic method of controlling it so that the above behavior does not
>occur would be to assign a number series with a relatively large offset.
Yes it was - I understood that the original post was discussing failure of
the annotate to recognise suffixes that it had previously applied.
Basically the annotation process should probably simply remove any
non-numeric suffix when determining what designators have been used. More
elaborate annotation schemes would require manual annotation or a much more
elaborate annotation process (maybe one that supports regular expressions).
><..snip>>
I look forward to your reply,
Ian Wilson
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
* - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
