On 12/15/2010 08:25 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
Maybe I should change the current pin_swap to
pin_relocate and use pin_swap to indicate that pins are interchangeable
a the net list level.
Yes - that is the terminology used with other CAD systems (PadsLogic, Orcad-capture etc).. Pin swap
- gate
On 12/15/2010 06:37 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
It will also require some diligence on the
user's part but I would rather not limit pin swaps to electrically
equivalent pins.
I understand not wanting to tie someones hands - but I'm not sure how that is
useful?
Just to be clear, some of the aut
On 12/16/2010 02:50 PM, Simon Rogers wrote:
> Could the schematic support multiple parts lists?
>
> I'm thinking of the problem supporting different builds say a European
> version or a US version where the schematic is the same but with
> component value changes due to, for example, 50Hz or 60Hz
Simon,
Hang on to this thought. We are limiting the discussion to the part file
format. The schematic file format discussion will happen after we've nailed
down the part file. I want to keep the focus narrow so we can get this done in
a timely manor.
Wayne
On 12/16/2010 3:50 PM, Simon Rogers
Could the schematic support multiple parts lists?
I'm thinking of the problem supporting different builds say a European
version or a US version where the schematic is the same but with
component value changes due to, for example, 50Hz or 60Hz supply or the
different voltages, regulations etc.
Some aid comes from making the list of lists be just a simple
std::set
where the contained string is a sorted list of space separated pins.
This gets pretty easy then.
Can you then support:
base class:
(pin_merge A B)
derived class:
(pin_merge B A C D)
The remaining problem i
On 12/16/2010 12:15 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 10:33 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 12/16/2010 10:22 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2010 08:12 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh
On 12/16/2010 10:33 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 10:22 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 12/16/2010 08:12 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrot
On 12/16/2010 10:22 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 08:12 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>>> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wro
On 12/16/2010 08:12 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> When placing components such as p
On 12/16/2010 08:12 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> When placing components such as p
>> It does need a way of telling the schematic capture how to choose a
>> look for a component. However, I think the functionality is allowed
>> for in the current spec already. The different versions can be
>> alternatives, then it is down to the GUI design to make these
>> alternatives easy to se
On 16 December 2010 14:09, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>
>> Brian,
>>
>> Even with the current software, try adding pins to your footprint that share
>> the same
>> pin
>
> pad
>> name. I believe the netlist will know then that these pins
>
> pads
>> are all equivalent and
>> are mapped to the very
On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>>>
>>>
When placing components such as passives (mainly R's and C's) you come
across the c
> Brian,
>
> Even with the current software, try adding pins to your footprint that share
> the same
> pin
pad
> name. I believe the netlist will know then that these pins
pads
> are all equivalent and
> are mapped to the very one and the same schematic pin. I remember doing
> this, so I
>
On 12/16/2010 06:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>>>
>>>
When placing components such as passives (mainly R's and C's) you come
across the
> The only thing not covered for me then would be one schematic pin to
> many footprint pins support. I can't see a nice way of doing that yet.
Brian,
Even with the current software, try adding pins to your footprint that share
the same
pin name. I believe the netlist will know then that thes
On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When placing components such as passives (mainly R's and C's) you come
>>> across the common problem that you draw the symbol either horizonta
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:16 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 15 December 2010 20:07, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> Dick and I have been discussing his ideas on making schematics and therefore
>> parts dimensionless. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Please
>> look over the discussion bel
19 matches
Mail list logo