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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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
Precedence: bulk

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