Re: gEDA-user: gEDA on windows

[Joerg <joergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dan McMahill wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
>> Mark Rages wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Joerg <joergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> John Doty wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, I'll try, it's been a long time since I tested it:
>>>>
>>>> Take the LM324 as an example. It is a chip with four opamps in there:
>>>> http://www.national.com/ds/LM/LM124.pdf
>>>>
>>>> When you place the first instantation it'll be pins 1,2,3, the next one
>>>> 5,6,7 and so on. But all are supplied via the common supply pins 4 and
>>>> 11. In gschem you only have two choices. Either you create a library
>>>> model that repeats those pins 4 and 11 visibly for all four
>>>> instantations or you create the library part with the power pins
>>>> detached where none of the instantations show power pins. This can be
>>>> practical for auto-connecting digital stuff to a VCC rail but it doesn't
>>>> work well in the analog world. Now you could also have pins 11 and 4 as
>>>> a separate "fifth" device. Anyhow, neither method looks professional,
>>>> neither is industry practice, and all make schematics more difficult to
>>>> understand for others. Especially for non-analog guys.
>>>>
>>> You can always use two symbols, one with power pins and one without.
>>> That's what I do.
>>>
>> But if you do that, can you call the first one U12A and have power pins, 
>> then next one U12B, then U12C and U12D without but so it sticks during 
>> renumbering and also correctly netlists? When I tried that the refdeses 
>> were messed up at the next renumbering.
> 
> Please file that as a bug report.  I suspect that you are correct that 
> at least refdes_renum doesn't play well with slotting.
> 

 From Ales' post I am assuming that it ain't desired to file this as a 
bug report ;-)

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/



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