X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer:	exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 (debian 1:2.8.0~rc1-2) with nmh-1.5
X-Exmh-Isig-CompType:	repl
X-Exmh-Isig-Folder:	inbox
From:	karl AT aspodata DOT se
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] HIDDEN PINS IN A SYMBOL
In-reply-to:	<CAOxVtSS9FVpgh1eYdj4tSr8LVkdp0=H8VVgxVAM=tYCqaAQY5g@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CALSZ9gp08b7L5HMesdT3yX-di-0PsqqjRA0b0RKGbc4FtOm6rQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150117213351 DOT 106EE81A5EB7 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <CAOFvGD5+=KfJ=6m+96ASmDe9QZ1DeSiJoQAWXbBGww0H+3z85g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAOxVtSS9FVpgh1eYdj4tSr8LVkdp0=H8VVgxVAM=tYCqaAQY5g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Comments:	In-reply-to Sergey Alyoshin <alyoshin DOT s AT gmail DOT com>
	message dated "Sun, 18 Jan 2015 02:09:16 +0400."
Mime-Version:	1.0
Message-Id:	<20150117222659.0CE0581A5EB7@turkos.aspodata.se>
Date:	Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:26:58 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned:	ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

Sergey Alyoshin:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Jason White
> <whitewaterssoftwareinfo AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 4:33 PM,  <karl AT aspodata DOT se> wrote:
...
> >>> How can I make the pin statements in the symbol that would allow 2 anode
> >>> pins and 4 cathode pins?
> >> Nothing stops you from overlap the pins, like the attached fp.
> > Cool! I had never though of that.
> Overlapped pins already connected with zero length net, so this should
> not be done for N.C. pins. It would be convenient, if pinnumber can
> have a list value, e.g. "2,7,8".

If the pins are overlapping in the sym, the semantics must (?) be that 
they have a cu path internally, or ?

If you have something that looks like one pin, shouldn't that iimply 
that regardless of which "sub-pin" you use, you get the same connection.

If you have pinnumber=2,7,8 and connects a NC sym directly to that, do 
you want the NC sym be implicitly triplicated ?
 What if you move the NC sym a little so there is a little short net,
and then what if the net is connected to something else ?

I think only meaningful semantic is if it looks like "one" pin, it 
should behave as if all "sub-pins" share the same cu-path internally.

///

Now for the case of ic's with lot of NC pins, maybe just not drawing
thoose pins in the sym is the solution. What do you think ?

Regards,
/Karl Hammar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57

- Raw text -