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

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 28, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Bill Gatliff wrote:

> 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.

There already is a separate namespace if you wish to use it: pinseq.  
But I think that is already confusing enough for most users.

>
> 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
>

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




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