At 12:25 PM 1/10/2002 -0500, Bob Wolfe wrote:

>What I do really want though is on the schematic side. All I want is for the
>update schematic
>function to actually put the footprint name defined in the symbol that is in
>my master library into the schematic symbol and actually use that footprint
>on a new design.

But that is exactly what it does (usually). The first footprint in the set 
of up to four defined for a symbol is used by default when a new symbol is 
placed. That's the behavior that I've seen.

>  As it works now if there is a symbol in the schematic with
>anything in the footprint field, if you update schematic any new footprint
>will not be used, that foot print stays there.

Yes. That is not a new schematic. As has been pointed out, the footprint 
choices in the symbol library are not controlling.

>  Then once it is in that
>design of course I don't want any automatic function removing or changing it
>unless I really need to change that particular footprint either by an all
>footprint update with synchronizer or individual update using PCB Update
>from library, or just putting any other footprint you want in there.

>I just think a little more control needs to be added to the update
>capability. I just have a problem with
>the fact that I ran a function that supposedly should update a symbol in a
>schematic with data from
>a symbol in the library.

It does. It just does not update the footprint, for the reasons which have 
been amply explained. The *choices* in the footprint are not *data*, that 
is, they are unrealized. An existing part in a schematic has *data*. Data 
should not be overridden by one of a set of choices, it has already 
presumably been chosen.

>  I see that doing things on the fly in the PCB like
>changing a footprint then updating schematic from that source, your saying
>you would not want a library update to a symbol in the schematic to change
>that footprint on you.

Right. And there seems to be wide agreement on this.

>  I just think the way the system does update you will
>have a problem with this. I would think there could easily be a choice here
>to either append or replece data in a symbol during update. That could keep
>everybody happy no matter where the source of
>the update comes from.

Perhaps. Every change like this makes the problem more complex. Some people 
are unhappy about increased complexity. It's a trade-off. Perhaps update 
Schematic from PCB should generate a list of macros just like update in the 
other direction does. This would be consistent. Then one could choose 
whether or not to preview changes, or one could edit the change list if 

Abdulrahman Lomax
Easthampton, Massachusetts USA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* To leave this list visit:
* Contact the list manager:
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to