At 09:19 AM 10/14/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>And that, in liue of the useless blather about "Four ways may not be used
>for any reason" coming from the two-year school, is all that matters.

My, my, what a way with words! Mr. Jenkins could write a book, "How to 
offend and drive away people." It would be a classic. 'Lieue' was 
mispelled, BTW, not that PCB designers are expected to be English majors.

Actually, I never went to school to learn what I do, except for one 
half-year electronics course in high school (vacuum tubes!), and some 
physics at CalTech. There are lot of experienced PCB designers who are very 
much against the use of four-way connections, and for good reason.

>Bug's a bug's a bug, and that's what the original post endeavored to report.

We agree that the disappearance of a junction is a bug. However, it should 
be noted that this particular bug predates CAD software. The original 
reason for disallowing the use of four-way junctions is that the tie dots 
might easily be lost in reproduction, and even if they are not lost, the 
eye reads a three-way junction *much* more quickly than a four-way, which 
resembles, too much, crossed lines.

Further, there have been *other* bugs, I've seen them in Protel and in 
OrCAD, involving disappearing tie dots.

Frankly, I'd design the software to *reject* four-way junctions. Try to 
make one, it would refuse (and suggest alternatives). Load one, it would 
flag it as an error. But, yes, it should not remove an existing junction 

>P.S. Draw the classical transitor amplifier.

What's a "transitor"?

It is true that, sometimes, a four-way junction can represent a circuit 
just a little more compactly than two three-way junctions. The compactness 
is not at all worth the potential confusion.

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