At 06:13 PM 2/12/2003, Peter W. Richards wrote:
In Viewdraw, the 'bus label' connecting to the submodule's port determines what gets hooked to what. If draw a bus with label FOO[7,5,3,1] connected to a submodule port BAR[0:3] you get exactly what you drew--FOO[7]->BAR[0], FOO[5]->BAR[1], etc. Flexible, and WYSIWYG.
This is the only design I've ever seen that makes sense--other CAD vendors [hint hint] should wise up and rip it off!!
Perhaps. That sounds simple and clear. One fly in the ointment is backward compatibility, but I think the incidence of conflicts might be low. However, see below.

(The problem is that any change in how the program interprets labels has the potential of taking a schematic that works as-is with a PCB and making the new netlist be incorrect. In this case, it would be "correct" to the eye, but it is possible that someone drew a schematic with non-functional net labels, i.e., net labels that functioned as before, where, say, D[8..15] as a sheet entry connected to X[12..15] as a bus label would connect D12 to X12, D13 to X13, D14 to X14, and D15 to X15, and nothing else. Someone might well have placed that intending exactly that.)

Suppose I wanted, with this example, to connect D9 to X12, D10 to X13, etc.
How would I indicate this *without changing the sheet entry*? The example you gave assumes that the sheet entry and bus label have the same number of nets. What if they are different?

This is the problem: how to indicate connectivity easily and without any ambiguity, *plus* maintain backward compatibility, *plus* not require any subsheet editing.







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