If anyone else has to maintain this, I think it'd be very confusing to have
2 footprints that together match 1 part.  If you do take this approach, at
least "group" the footprints so they can't readily be moved separately.

As far as making the schematic ugly with an integrated part, you could make
it a multi-part symbol, so you have the same layout flexibility as with
separate symbols.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Cardone
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 10:12 AM>
>
> Tony,
> You could keep the schematic symbols separate and add alternate packages
> that would have convenient origins to allow correct placement to mimic a
> single package on the pwb. The schematic should make it clear that D1 is
> related to SW1. If the single package is used you can blank the diode
> reference designator. Problem? pick and place, BOM, extraneous lines on
> assembly drawing....
> John
>
> Tony Karavidas wrote:
> > I have a schematic that uses an array of SPST switches and LEDs.
> >
> > On the PCB, I want to potentially keeps these as integrated parts, or
> > possibly as separate LEDs and switches.
> >
> > How can I draw one schematic and still have the flexibility to use
either
> > physical configuration? If I keep the LED and switch arrays separate in
the
> > sch, then annotation will make two parts (D1 and SW1) for each switch
with a
> > built-in LED.
> >
> > If I make a special sch symbol that contains an LED and a switch, the
> > schematic is ugly as hell, and THEN I can't use a separate switch and
> > separate LED.
> >
> > What would you do???
> >
> > Tony

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