X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Envelope-From: paubert AT iram DOT es
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:20:33 +0200
From: "Gabriel Paubert (paubert AT iram DOT es) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: "Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] back annotation proposal (RFC)
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <55E42456.5080309@jump-ing.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Spamina-Bogosity: Unsure
X-Spamina-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/)
X-Spamina-Spam-Report: Content analysis details:   (-0.2 points)
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
  0.8 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
                             [score: 0.4999]
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: delorie.com]
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
Precedence: bulk

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