Re: gEDA-user: Subnets

[Stefan Salewski <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 15:43 -0400, Rick Collins wrote:
> 
> First, I want to say that power supply bypassing is probably not a 
> good example to use since there are a number of ways to layout such 
> things and many people will disagree about the "optimal" way of doing 
> it.  Perhaps a more general example can be used?
> 
No. The basic idea of our proposal was to define attributes/classes for
nets in the schematic. Subnets are only a special case, which makes much
sense in the case of power supply. OK, one more, but very special case,
where subnets may be useful: We can have nets of 3 nodes, where we want
a linear shape, not a T or star shape. For this case we may define one
subnet from pin 1 to 2, and one more from 2 to 3. We make these two
subnets not compatible, so they are allowed to touch only at pin 2. So
we can enforce the shape of the layout on the schematic level.  

> You are talking about everything in the context of what you would 
> like to see in the schematic editor.  But none of this is useful 
> unless the autorouter handles it.

No. It would be fine if the autorouter can access this information. But
all these attributes/classes are a great benefit for manually routing.

For details see the related posting in this list...





_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user