Re: gEDA-user: A couple o' questions

[sdb@xxxxxxxxxx (Stuart Brorson)]

> > Current pintype attributes are defined in the same way as commercial
> > packages I've seen. What I also miss is the "power source" or "power
> > sink" pintype. Adding them to the DRC is fairly trivial, and also =20
> > to the
> > docs. Would it be better to have pwr_in and pwr_out pintypes?
> 
> Consider linear/lm7805-1.sym. No pintypes. But what should they be? =20
> Well, maybe OUT should have type pwr_out (if it exists). But what =20
> about IN? Perhaps pwr_in seems sensible, but then it's most likely =20
> connected to a diode and a cap: will DRC be able to figure this out? =20
> Then there's GND, what pintype is that? Remember that it's perfectly =20
> sensible to connect this to something other than ground, to get 5V =20
> *relative* to some other potential.
> 
> The trouble I see is that the correct pintype needs to be obvious to =20
> the symbol creator, or chaos results. In pure digital stuff the =20
> correct pintype usually *is* obvious, but in other applications it's =20
> not.

Maybe what's needed is a "NA" = "not applicable" pin type.  This will
tell the DRC checker to not worry about the connection and report no
error. 

Under ViewDraw, I think you can place an "analog" pin type which tells
the DRC checker to not worry about what it is connected to.

IMHO, the utility of a schematic DRC check is in finding single pin
nets.  THese are often the result of a real mistake, i.e. the net is
named output_1 on one page, but named output-1 on the other page.  As
long as the DRC checker is reporting single pin nets, I don't care
about other things like gezzinnas attached to other gezzinnas and not
attached to gezzouttas. 

Stuart