X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<526DB865.1040200@ecosensory.com>
Date:	Sun, 27 Oct 2013 20:05:41 -0500
From:	John Griessen <john AT ecosensory DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Power to ICs with numslots > 1
References:	<CANhYM9G+eK=9V8L59PyU8nCOO22GVVF1bRb3TRC9kbACazfg8w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <201310261908 DOT r9QJ8Vv8025803 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <526C9628 DOT 7000201 AT sonic DOT net> <CANhYM9GofUvnHj5M9s6oeKN7eO8hQ+sYSsHtdh+MQZfiwF=fgw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CANhYM9HBm2Z+M07uNCSayiA_Ua+_x3-gezXA7cozRnthwjRaqA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <1382899880 DOT 21120 DOT 7 DOT camel AT pcjc2lap>
In-Reply-To:	<1382899880.21120.7.camel@pcjc2lap>
X-RR-Connecting-IP:	107.14.168.130:25
X-Cloudmark-Score:	0
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 10/27/2013 01:51 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
> IMO, connecting the hierarchy explicitly is superior (and less prone to
> errors) than trying to use flat net-names across the whole design.

Yes, me too, and that matches my old chip design experience, where reusing a block never depended
on names internal to it. (I mention chip design because it is very virtual/nit-picky and
mistakes in physical chips very expensive).

- Raw text -