Re: gEDA-user: Strange behavior with input-1.sym and output-1.sym?

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On May 7, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Stefan Salewski wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 12:58 -0600, John Doty wrote:
>
>>
>>  From my perspective, your use of these symbols to name nets seems
>> strange. I think of these as hierarchical connection devices. To name
>> a net it is simpler and less confusing to use the netname= attribute
>> rather than a symbol, I think. But it is again unclear what these
>> symbols were intended for by their original authors.
>>
>
> At the beginning the existence on net and netname attribute was very
> confusing for me.
>
> Now I am using many in- out- io- and power-symbols with attributes  
> like
> net=3.3V-plus:1 or net=ADC_D0 or Digital_In_Enable:1.
>
> Using such symbols makes it easy to move these nets around -- moving
> from one FPGA pin to another for better layout, or moving to  
> another pin
> of a microcontroller because the pin used prior is needed for  
> something
> other. Or for duplicating netnames.
>
> I think I can not do this with netname attribute in such an easy way.

If you copy or move a net segment that has a netname attribute, the  
attribute goes along for the ride. Seems easy to me.

> And I think it may happen that one deletes a net while modifying a
> schematic without noticing that one has deleted the netname= too.
>
> My impression was that attribute graphical=1 was for devices which
> should be not mounted on PCB, i.e. obsolete parts, external  
> temperature
> sensors...

Title blocks use graphical=1: they don't represent devices at all.  
One of my customers has the stylistic standard that a hierarchical  
sub-schematic should include the graphic for the symbol that  
represents it, as sort of a graphical comment. Attach graphical=1 to  
the symbol, and you get that. Ales broke this usage a few years ago  
(given the ambiguity of the meaning of graphical=1, that's  
understandable), but quickly fixed it at my request. I guess if you  
establish practice, you get a say in how the ambiguity is resolved...

>
> Of course a very precise definition of attributes would be very
> important.
>
> Best regards
>
> Stefan Salewski
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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