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).


I look forward to your reply,
Ian Wilson

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
*                      - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
* Contact the list manager:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to