Stuart Brorson wrote: > FWIW, I wrote a blurb about this question for the wiki a couple of > weeks ago. Here it is: > > http://geda.seul.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=geda:faq-gschem#what_should_i_do_about_power_pins_on_my_symbolsmake_them_visible_explicit_or_invisible_implicit Well, I agree only half way with you. It is true, that power pins in analog circuits should be visible on the schematic. But having them on attached to the triangular shape is not correct either. Imagine a quad opamp: If you use symbols with visible power pins, you get eight visible power pins. My preferred solution would be a special slot just for the power connections. This is how we dealt with this issue in Protel99 and it has its advantages for circuits that contain lots of opamps. The power connections plus the necessary caps don't clutter the feedback loops. So the circuit is easier to read. Still the power pins are explicitly drawn and can be tied to some exotic net. I usually draw all the power symbols with their caps in some quite corner of the paper. The only drawback is that the supply caps are not in the neighborhood of the corresponding triangular shape. But with quadamps the triangular shapes that belong to one component are scattered over the schematic anyway. Nevertheless, I don't see how I could implement this technique with gschem. There seems to be no way to let a gschem symbol contain slots with different pinout. The same problem arises if a component has slots that perform different functions. This is the case for some analog multipliers that contain an additional opamp with no internal connection to the multiplier. Did I miss something obvious? ---<(kaimartin)>--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak kmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Blog: http://lilalaser.dyndns.org/blog
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature