On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> 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.

Hmm. If you use numeric allocation offset (start this sheet at 100, etc),
the annotator gets it completely right - no allocation re-use. This is a
straightforward, easy to understand, bug. We've all done similar. I don't
think there's a need to complicate that dialog with a 'reuse designators'
box - if that's what's wanted, then 'reset designators' elsewhere is the
way to go, and already exists. 

> 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 

that was indeed the case. The components are on the PCB - I just wanted a
few more. (series termination resistors, you know the deal...)

--, 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.

Care to talk me / us through that? I've sometimes wondered how to drive
the global editor harder,and this looks like a good example...
(removing and re-adding trailing 'A' to all part designators on this
sheet)

Steve


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to