X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=I4GBMNjwELwO/77ajhnJito+bxRuBReEYrisv8fiTkA=;
	b=N3nWPb8+HKA3Vr8/F8M/mJsrjBRtvZXNJ+1xO/1mNUdCcaDuZFsGuxETePA3Q9dh0p
	+Wwk/WAx6eXfDNAr0cQjIagciHQf5Bxe/Jcorcc8KI28bSsIfjYp5tbZcjXgoa9xGQhl
	tf096z3JURMSg9g3/Hv3Sg6Cg4AAKD3aX05IYIxcF+BdWgsjqV7GEheRK5pAUd68IYQQ
	NvSBh+1D1G6+kR1+6Fg/p2qEXWMkN70yiFVBPxRZi9E+5ZhF5692ioLxviDt1u5TPtD0
	JPHPCZjEEq8cd9ym1u95Tax4E9NdWg0lnVAZmgZOiIonUPeIItQi8ELCk+8Us5/C/jLy
	AVNw==
X-Received:	by 10.194.111.232 with SMTP id il8mr26634950wjb.117.1441021294410;
	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 04:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date:	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:41:27 +0200
From:	"Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] back annotation proposal (RFC)
Message-Id:	<20150831134127.9dccc4c2563ce7bba5ded79d@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:	<20150831112032.GA8963@visitor2.iram.es>
References:	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508301838470 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<201508301802 DOT t7UI2twS031311 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhRgPQG2WDFVb0SFvMbypyYKS2oYtD=851WHR6fOB4iWdA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201508310341 DOT t7V3fcfh022966 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<20150831111604 DOT 5b1bb421bc015de9a848e8a9 AT gmail DOT com>
	<55E42456 DOT 5080309 AT jump-ing DOT de>
	<20150831112032 DOT GA8963 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t7VBfcUr022869
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Non polarized sounds good, then the rats nest could chose the closest one. If PCB know pins or gates are swapable it could handle the magic itself but then I think closer it is however not possible to know which pin is connected where then reading the schematic.

I have thought a little bit more about the back annotation. Basically there is a syncronization problem then for example a Refdes or footprint could be changed either from gschem or pcb. One possibility to adress this is for pcb to request gschem to make the change as I suggested before with a function like call. If files are used and changes are going both directions I could not figure out how to solve.


On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:20:33 +0200
"Gabriel Paubert (paubert AT iram DOT es) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:54:30AM +0200, Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> > Am 31.08.2015 um 11:16 schrieb Nicklas Karlsson:
> > 
> > > I do not get everything but for pin and gate swapping ideally there
> > > should be no need for back annotation.
> > 
> > Good point!
> > 
> > For simple elements like resistors the definition should be "pin 1 or pin 2, but not both" or "pin 1 or pin 2, but not the same as the other pin".
> 
> Fro simple elements like this, why not have an attribute called
> "symmetric_dipole"?
> 
> This would be set for non-polarized capacitors, most inductors (not all,
> conical inductors are not symmetric) and (all?) resistors. I don't know
> of any asymmetric 2 contact resistors, but they might exist.
> 
> This causes a problem for pcb ratsnest, because of combinatorial
> explosion when trying to decide which pins to swap on symmetric dipoles,
> maybe a popup menu to control swapping would be better. But for these
> components I fail to see the need for back-annotation to schematics;
> I'm just a bit fed-up of rotating passive dipoles by 180° when laying 
> out PCB with many such components, especially since if often implies
> adjusting the orientation and position of the refdes (when it's not
> hidden).
> 
> > For elements with slots it should be "pin 1 of the same slot as pin 2 and pin 3". Looks like pin mappings need more logic than just '='.
> > 
> 
> There are cases where you can do gate (slot) swapping but 
> no pin swapping, as with 74125 and 74126, or flip-flops like 7474.
> 
> 
>     Gabriel

- Raw text -