Did you run out of your meds?? You really are nitpicking now.

I don't know why they dropped Demorgan equiv. or IEEE symbols (I never
used the latter anyway) but the 256 alternates seems more then
appropriate. You first complain about the drop, then complain about the
alternate method.

Why does it matter? Thousands of people have been 'drawing' schematics
just fine for a long time with none of the above and all of the above.
(paper days to cad days)

If "De Morgan equivalent of a logic symbol is used for absolutely no
other purpose whatsoever except for clarification of a logic function"
then what do you care if Protel calls it a "De Morgan equivalent" or an
"alternate version" or an "alternate symbol" It's all the same damn
thing. It a tool for US to draw things so OTHER people can understand
what we want them to understand.

How is your method any better or any different than having alternate
versions of a symbol? 

Tony




> -----Original Message-----
> From: JaMi Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 12:28 AM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Cc: JaMi Smith
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] WARNING!!! Junctions at + points can 
> disappear in DXP
> 
> 
> Ian,
> 
> Please see below.
> 
> JaMi
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] WARNING!!! Junctions at + points can 
> disappear in DXP
> 
> 
> > On 03:19 PM 14/10/2002 -0700, JaMi Smith said:
> >
> > >The issue is not to win friends and influence people, any 
> more than 
> > >it is
> to
> > >nit pick over spelling.
> >
> > Beg to differ - you posted the original message in order to 
> influence 
> > people. The whole point of a forum like this is to 
> influence people.  
> > The whole point of constructive criticism of the CAE 
> program many of 
> > use is to influence people (Altium programmers and 
> management). Sprays 
> > and vitriol may influence people, possibly not in the direction 
> > intended though - I thought Andrew Jenkin's comments were 
> just on the 
> > wrong side of the border.  Been there myself often enough.
> >
> 
> OK, Ian, you lost me here, this is my first entry into the 
> fray on this thread, and as far as I know, on any related thread.
> 
> I just came in at Abd's comments, and backed up to get the 
> whole thread, and then responded with my response.
> 
> It appears that you and I both posted, about the same time, 
> both in response to Abd, and I just now checked my email and 
> saw two from you on this thread.
> 
> > >The real issue is to get the people south of the boarder who don't 
> > >have
> any
> > >inkling of the real issues involved in the real world of 
> electronics 
> > >to
> stop
> > >writing software that screws up a perfectly good schematic of an
> oscillator
> > >or other symmetrical circuit that legitimately uses a 4 way 
> > >connection.
> >
> > JaMi - please report what Nick Martin has said on this matter to be 
> > fair.  Though some of this may be subject to the NDA.  But everyone 
> > should not assume the sensible, sane, discussion on this 
> matter is not 
> > being listened to.  Just doesn't make good headlines does it...
> >
> 
> I will be happy to do this, but please remember that you have 
> asked me to do this, and I am not trying to dump on anyone 
> here, simply answer your question.
> 
> Please let me reiterate - you asked - please don't jump on me 
> for honestly responding here below
> 
> Ok, to be fair, I will give an example, and not necessarily 
> directly on this specific topic, but on a very closely 
> related topic, on schematic and logic symbols in particular, 
> and I am not quite sure who wrote all of the posts, but some 
> Altium people responded, and I also know that Nick was 
> involved in this one, although please note, I bit my tongue 
> and stayed out of it.
> 
> Let me now direct everyone's attention to the original DXP 
> Tech Forum, and a few comments that showed up there back in 
> August just after DXP was released (forgive me while I 
> multiplex here and look for tidbits.)
> 
> Go to your DXP Tech Forum Archive, and begin with the thread 
> "Re: [DXP] Bugs and Missing Capability - no De-morgan [sic] 
> ??"  by Dennis Saputelli, on 8.12. From there the thread 
> appears to be reinitiated by Dennis again on 8.13 under the 
> thread subject of "Re: [DXP] no De-morgan [sic] or IEEE 
> alternate symbols ?? - the horror".
> 
> I would recommend that anyone that is really interested in 
> following this should first go read all of the posts in the 
> thread, thoroughly and without bias.
> 
> Now, without commenting on specifics, I am going to give my 
> impressions of what the various things in this thread spoke 
> to me, be it right or wrong.
> 
> While I did not have the time or the experience with DXP to 
> get directly involved in the thread at that time (didn't even 
> have it installed), I was firstly appalled that Altium would 
> delete the availability of a De Morgan equivalent for any 
> logic symbol. This, in and of itself, speaks volumes to me 
> about Altiums failure to really comprehend one of the primary 
> purposes of a schematic or logic diagram, which is to 
> properly and clearly convey the electrical function of a 
> circuit. In my opinion, many EDA Companies have lost this 
> perspective of looking at a schematic or logic diagram, or 
> never ever really had it to begin with, and to me, this truly 
> says that Protel / Altium is in fact one of those companies.
> 
> Secondly, I am also appalled at the number of people who use 
> the availability to have a De Morgan equivalent within a 
> logic symbol, as an alternate symbol function. To me, these 
> people asking for trouble, and too lazy to correctly develop 
> a true alternate symbol, which unfortunately actually gives 
> some justification for Altiums responses in the DXP forum.
> 
> The thing that is truly odd here, is that what really struck 
> me as bizarre, is something that I am sure everyone involved 
> in the thread will deny the minute I mention it, yet I 
> believe that any unbiased observer will see upon examination 
> of the threads, is the fact that everyone involved in the 
> threads clearly and unambiguously defined and / or accepted 
> the usage of both "De-morgan [sic]" AND / OR "IEEE" symbols 
> as alternates to "standard" symbols.
> 
> The funny thing is, none of them appear to seem to think that 
> there is anything wrong with this assumption, either at that 
> time, and possibly even now reading up to this very sentence, 
> they do not think there is anything wrong with this, or 
> really understand that this really reveals that they do not 
> know much about schematic or logic diagram symbology.
> 
> What many people call "standard" or "regular" logic symbols, 
> are in fact actually "Distinctive Shape" logic symbols, and 
> were originally simply called logic symbols. With the advent 
> of the "IEEE" style logic symbols, first comprehensively 
> introduces by TI, it became necessary to distinguish between 
> the "IEEE" symbols and the "originals", and hence the 
> "originals" were then specifically named as "Distinctive 
> Shape" logic symbols.
> 
> What this is leading up to is this. "Distinctive Shape" logic 
> symbols, and "IEEE" logic symbols, are each ALTERNATE TYPES 
> OF LOGIC SYMBOLS.
> 
> De Morgan, or more properly De Morgans Theorem, can be 
> applied to most LOGIC FUNCTIONS, irrespective of the TYPE of 
> symbology that used to represent the function, and thus you 
> may correctly have a De Morgan equivalent of a "Distinctive 
> Shape" logic symbol, just as correctly as you can have a De 
> Morgan equivalent of a "IEEE" logic symbol, although the 
> latter is certainly less common.
> 
> The real point here, is that it is apparent that none of the 
> participants of that discussion appeared to be aware of this, 
> although I am sure that now they will all deny it at this 
> time and say that I am nit picking, and that it really does 
> not matter.
> 
> Well it actually does matter, but the place that it does 
> matter is right back there in the area that I am complaining 
> about to begin with, and that is having to do with the need 
> to understand that one of the primary functions of a 
> schematic (remember we got here by talking about some places 
> where a 4-Way connection really should be used) or a logic 
> diagram is to clearly convey the operation of an electronic 
> circuit, which is in fact the EXACT FUNCTION AND PURPOSE of a 
> De Morgan equivalent of any logic symbol.
> 
> A De Morgan equivalent of a logic symbol is used for 
> absolutely no other purpose whatsoever except for 
> clarification of a logic function. Period. End of story. It 
> is only unimportant to those who have lost site of the 
> "clarification" issue (or never had it in the first place).
> 
> Unfortunately, with the advent of modern day CAD systems for 
> the desktop PC such as OrCAD, (and other offenders including 
> Protel), which for the most part use a Laser Printer for an 
> output, and the advent of "Hierarchical Schematics", and 
> "Multisheet Schematics", all of which were brought about by 
> not being able to get things to be legible and still fit on 
> an "A" size in the first place, the function of a schematic 
> or logic diagram has degraded in the hands of the modern "two 
> year wonder" (I believe that that was what Andrew was really 
> trying to say), whether he be a designer, a programmer, or a 
> software developer, to be nothing more that a collection of 
> symbols and lines whose only real function now is to "front 
> end" the "netlist" which in turn "frontends" other EDA 
> functions such as PCB design.
> 
> I believe that it truly is the case that even the people who 
> are writing the software at Altuim have indeed lost site of 
> the functionality of the schematic and logic diagram, and it 
> certainly does not say much when all of the key players and 
> users in these forums are doing "stupid tricks" like putting 
> an alternate symbol of an op amp in place of a De Morgan 
> functional equivalent.
> 
> Ok, you ask, how do I do it. Well, not to digress, but 
> firstly, due to the problems with multiple supplies and 
> grounds, especially in the analog arena, I believe that it is 
> essential that all power and ground pins must be specifically 
> shown "except for truely standardized logic) and individually 
> connected to prevent errors. Unfortunately, this tends to add 
> more information to an already cluttered  up schematic, but 
> it prevents errors. Second, I make sure that each individual 
> type of op amp has its own specific symbol, with all pins 
> clearly labeled and all pin numbers clearly shown. Again, 
> this tends to add a little clutter, but is proven to reduce 
> errors. Finally, after I make the schematic symbol for an 
> ABC123 type op amp, I make a copy of it, and edit the inputs 
> to represent the same op amp with the inputs inverted, and 
> then I rename the copy as ABD123_I, where the "_I" clearly 
> conveys that the inputs are inverted. I now truly do have an 
> "alternate" symbol, that clearly has an "alternate" usage, 
> and a symbol that I can guarantee that no one can ever 
> reverse the pinout on. I know, you are all going to find 
> something wrong with that, but such is life. I can now easily 
> train an engineer to use the correct symbol, and since I have 
> provided him with the alternative, he will actually use it 
> and I don't have to worry about him flipping the symbol 
> vertically and hooking up the power and ground backwards, 
> which is real easy for some engineers to do. (I also believe 
> that it is especially important to label all transistors 
> (including AJ's transitor variety) and diodes with pin 
> numbers in the symbols due to common packaging variations.) I 
> know, I am doing it all backwards.
> 
> Actually, I think not. When I have an alternate function for 
> the same device, I make an alternate symbol, and I do not 
> hide it in the De Morgan function. A De Morgan equivilent of 
> a given function will never electrically alter the function, 
> as some of you are doing with your op amps.
> 
> Please do not construe any of the above to imply that I am 
> against taking advantage of "pin swapping" (in the sense of 
> traditional "gate swapping"), where functionally identical 
> pins can be swapped. This can usually be accomplished by 
> mirrioring only one axis of the symbol, but occasionally even 
> this demands the use of a true alternate symbol (until DXP 
> Next Generation, which will handle all of this for us 
> automatically (yeah sure)).
> 
> I know that you are all going to now say "but now we can 
> define up to 256 blah blah blah . . . "
> 
> The real problem with that is that with the possible 
> exception of true "pin swapping", and a true De Morgan 
> equivalent, you really do not "need" to be able to define any 
> other "versions" of a symbol, because all of the "alternates" 
> truly should be an "alternate symbol". This usually also 
> applies even when alternating between "Distinctive Shape" and 
> "IEEE" symbols (unless it can all be done with exactly the 
> same pin locations, etc.) .
> 
> Giving you the option of screwing up 256 times instead of one 
> or two is not what I would consider a real solution to the 
> problem. I actually think that the "solution" to this problem 
> as I understand it is to be implemented in DXP is not in fact 
> a soultion but a monumental blunder.
> 
> The first step in any real solution is to learn how to draw a 
> schematic in the first place.
> 
> I am sorry, you asked. No offense intended.
> 
> JaMi
> 
> 
> 

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