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

[Bill Gatliff <bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stefan Salewski wrote:
>
> Currently we (may) have different symbol files for the the same device
> with different footprints. So we have the same graphics elements
> multiple times. This is redundancy, wast of storage area, and it makes
> it more work to modify the graphics. So it is not a perfect solution.
>
> And replacing a symbol in a schematic only because we want a different
> footprint is not a very natural way for me.
>   

Right.

To me, the symbols in a schematic are strictly that--- symbols.  Why
should I switch to a visually-identical symbol, just because the pin
assignments underneath have changed?

Maybe we're philosophically disagreeing on what a schematic diagram
represents.  I don't think of them as wiring diagrams, but as signal
flow diagrams.  PCB's job is to turn that into a wiring diagram.  Or
something like that.

Apparently to some, schematics are also wiring diagrams.  Cool.  So put
wiring information into your symbols.  All of them.



b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




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