[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)
On 4/10/07, ldoolitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <ldoolitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Svenn -
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 06:32:31PM +0200, Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote:
> A solder dot does _explicitely_ tell the reader that there is a
> connection. The lack of a solder dot does not explicitely tell you
> [chop]
If you want to tell people that they should use wire jumps in
their schematics, you have already lost.
No, I am not telling anybody that they *should* use anything. Please
read my contributions to the thread again. I was answering a question
from somebody who asked if there exist a /better/ way to indicate a
non-connection of two crossing lines than a wire jump. In my opinion
there is none. All other means are implicit and requires the reader to
have knowledge on schematic drawing. (Which most readers have)
If you want gschem to have the capability of showing unconnected
wire crosses with jumps, so you can display schematics that way,
you have a chance. Especially if you volunteer to help code.
I never stated any wish for this feature, somebody, I think it was
John Coppens, said that he hadn't seen this feature around for a
while, and I decided to provide the info that Visio, a tool that is
now a part of Microsoft Office, do have this feature, just to tell
that the concept is not totally dead. I don't use gschem for
professional work so I never have to face the question "are those
lines crossing or connected?". Obviously I use Visio.
> I think there must be some kind of misconseption of the use
> of the words explicite and implicite in my original post.
The correct English spellings are explicit and implicit.
Thanks, I will correct.
--
Svenn
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user