Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/01/18/02:14:56
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 1:26 AM, <karl AT aspodata DOT se> wrote:
> Sergey Alyoshin:
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Jason White
>> <whitewaterssoftwareinfo AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 4:33 PM, <karl AT aspodata DOT se> wrote:
> ...
>> >>> How can I make the pin statements in the symbol that would allow 2 anode
>> >>> pins and 4 cathode pins?
>> >> Nothing stops you from overlap the pins, like the attached fp.
>> > Cool! I had never though of that.
>> Overlapped pins already connected with zero length net, so this should
>> not be done for N.C. pins. It would be convenient, if pinnumber can
>> have a list value, e.g. "2,7,8".
>
> If the pins are overlapping in the sym, the semantics must (?) be that
> they have a cu path internally, or ?
If some pins have cu path internally or not is not always specified in
documentation.
> If you have something that looks like one pin, shouldn't that iimply
> that regardless of which "sub-pin" you use, you get the same connection.
>
> If you have pinnumber=2,7,8 and connects a NC sym directly to that, do
> you want the NC sym be implicitly triplicated ?
> What if you move the NC sym a little so there is a little short net,
> and then what if the net is connected to something else ?
Then the would be no red square on that single symbol
pin with pinnumber list and you can see whey (pins in list) are
actually connected somehow.
> I think only meaningful semantic is if it looks like "one" pin, it
> should behave as if all "sub-pins" share the same cu-path internally.
>
> ///
>
> Now for the case of ic's with lot of NC pins, maybe just not drawing
> thoose pins in the sym is the solution. What do you think ?
It is confused for others, who is have a deal with such schematic, as
it looks like it may miss maybe something important.
- Raw text -