At 09:21 AM 7/12/01 +1000, Ian Wilson wrote:
>>{I wrote:]
>>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.

I was right on all accounts -- in that paragraph --, but that is pedantic. 
I was also missing something. I was quite aware of that possibility, but I 
went ahead and, as it turns out, stuck my foot in my mouth, out of a hope 
that what I was writing might be useful to a designer in distress, and it 
would be at the worst useless.

Yes, now I am more sympathetic to the designation of this as a bug. It's 
fairly easy to understand how it got there, and how to work around it, but 
it is a bug, that is, the program behavior is other than what a reasonably 
sane designer may expect having looked at the menus and knowing the general 
behavior of the program..

It duplicates reference designators, which it should never do unless forced 
by the Advanced settings.

However, it could be argued that by leaving the re-annotation starting 
number at 1, which is what was done, the Annotate tool has been forced to 
do just exactly that, which is why I still consider this a missing feature. 
It *is* following the literal instructions of the dialog box.

Normally, we would want it to pass over used designators when using the 
Advanced Tab options, and this would, indeed, be preferred as default 
behavior. I'm not sure I can think of a reason why we would want to do 
otherwise. But the history of this tool, if I remember correctly, may 
explain why it is now functioning as it is, and why it can still be 
considered a missing feature instead of a bug, per se. It is a tool which 
does a certain thing and does not go beyond that.

We did not have this Advanced annotation feature until quite recently. When 
it was added, the programmer assumed that we were annotating a sheet for 
the first time, or he or she did not have the time to add what we would 
really want:

A check box that says "pass over used designators." Since we would want 
this in nearly all cases, this should have been the default behavior, but 
the programmer was simply adding a new facility and did not consider all 
the implications. The tool works as it was designed; if you have a starting 
number, it will honor it and use it regardless of the fact that this number 
already exists.

And if the starting number is not specified, it does not analyze the 
schematic to determine it, but assumes that the starting number is 1. If 
the Advanced Options are set for a sheet, it passes over the routines that 
would otherwise determine if a number is available or not and simply starts 
with 1 or with whatever number has been specified.

to get around this one might re-annotate the whole page from scratch -- the 
most likely to be easiest procedure unless one has become fixed on those 
existing numbers --, or, in case one wishes to keep them, remove the 
suffixes for the page, reannotate without using the advanced options, then 
add the suffixes using global edit. This is the old way, and almost as fast 
as the new. It does require knowing how to use the global editor 
replacement criteria, which can be intimidating, but it is worth learning.

Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433

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