On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Marco Serantoni wrote:
We could use a base library that is referred from specific parts library as
father using its symbol like classes (inherance).
So who wants heavy libraries has its parts, who keeps its library light has its
part fallbacking to the father.
It seems
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
Inheritance. hmmm. Why not just *copy* symbol by symbol and make each
copied symbol into a part-specific component in a new project specific
library.
I agree. More simple to use and less complex to implement, can't be
a bad thing :D
But we are
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Martijn Kuipers wrote:
I would be very happy with an export function, doing: Export all used
components into a project library.
This way I can send the schematics on to the next person and (s)he can adjust
where needed, without having to look for some components/footprint
On 9/24/2010 2:25 AM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
Inheritance. hmmm. Why not just *copy* symbol by symbol and make each
copied symbol into a part-specific component in a new project specific
library.
I agree. More simple to use and less complex
On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
I'm not particularly thrilled by the idea of using a database. There are the
Neither me, I couldn't open it in vi :D it's the 'library' idea which is
flawed IMHO. If it isn't for some of these crappy filesystems we have
around (you know their
Re- gate swap and pin swap.
This is a missing feature (very useful one) that would require a couple of
fields in the library.
I'll use the example of a hex AND-gate.
When we lay out the PCB, it can turn out that if we swap gate A with gate B in the package, it
eliminates a via. Same thing
6 matches
Mail list logo
