Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity (was: Taking advantage of internally connected pins)

[Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 21:22 -0800, Dave N6NZ wrote:
> I'm reposting this because the discussion died and I'd like to give
> the topic a bump -- I think it needs some collective thought by the
> group.
> 
> It seems to me that we are missing a way to specify a connectivity
> satisfaction rule for a particular pin number on a footprint.  Right
> now, pcb only considers the connectivity satisfied if "all" pins with
> the same number are connected to the net in question.  At the very
> least, it seems that there should be a way to specify that "any" pin
> with the same number satisfies the connection.

The above is no real problem for me.

> I think there is also a second axis to this specification, and that is
> whether or not the component contributes connectivity.  For example,
> in Ben's switch, the switch provides connectivity.  If you want to
> continue the net, it is valid to add a track to either pin -- there is
> connectivity through the component.  I can imagine components where
> you can connect to "any" pin to satisfy connectivity to the component,
> but where it violates the component spec to connect through it.  Now,
> in a practical sense, I'm willing to forgo this much smartness in pcb,
> its a rare enough case I could check that manually.  But I think
> "through" connectivity is common enough (most any switch) that it is a
> case that should be handled.

The danger comes if you don't populate the switch. This then causes
break in the board connectivity. I personally think such cases ought to
be handled by making the connections explicit on the schematic - perhaps
showing a two-pin through-connection on the switch symbol.




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