Re: gEDA-user: RFC: Towards a better symbol/package pin-mapping strategy

[Bill Gatliff <bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave N6NZ wrote:
>
> Agreed.  I've felt that way since the beginning -- for the same reason 
> that you mentioned: changing package.  For me, it's pretty annoying to 
> have to replace the schematic symbol to go from through-hole to surface 
> mount just because the pin numbers are different.
>
>   

It just occurred to me that the problem is what a
computer-science-type-guy would call one of "namespace".

Symbol pin numbers and footprint pin numbers come from the same
namespace in gaf's implementation.  They shouldn't.

That is all.  :)



b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




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