On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 10:09:49 -0500, Robert M. Wolfe wrote:

>engineers do not take in the bigger picture when looking at a problem, which
>should include the entire group on the food chain of data to the final product.

But I am looking at the bigger picture - the issue is not what information
the schematic document contains but what selection of that information you
choose to show and how on hard copy. 

I'll wager no one shows all information contained in a schematic on hard
copy (no one unhides all component fields) because the schematic would be
so cluttered as to be unreadable. 

If someone needs to know exactly what that 10k resistor is they have to
look it up in the part list. If someone needs to know exactly what supplies
are connected to a chip I really don't see that having to look it up in a
netlist or power table on the last sheet is so very different. 

Judgement is called for. If that 10k resistor was a 20W power device or a
0.1% precision part I may well show that on hard copy the same as I will
likely show unusual power supply connections. For the most part 10k
resistor details and power supply connections are uninteresting and should
be hidden. 

>Sorry but that "just a graphical netlist" got to me.

It is the few rants here specifically about power pins (and previously even
about no connect pins) which lead me to the "just a graphical netlist"
conclusion.

I create schematics for others and myself to read. I get netlists out of
them but don't compromise readability for the sake of making it slightly
harder to screw up the netlist.


Cheers, Terry.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to