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

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On May 7, 2009, at 1:31 PM, Bill Gatliff wrote:

> 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.
>>>
>
> Maybe, but having the little symbol there is more conventional with
> other schematic diagrams I've seen over the years.

That's precisely how busses work: there's a little symbol  
(busripper-1) that goes on the end of a net. It has the  
responsibility of graphically terminating a net, but with graphical=1  
it is otherwise ignored. The name is attached to the net segment with  
netname=, it is not defined by the bus ripper.

Any graphic with the properties of busripper-1 can serve here: it  
needn't attach to a bus. But I tend to group off-sheet connections in  
busses anyway, and use hierarchy to minimize the need.

>
>
> 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