X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
	:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
	:user-agent;
	bh=F8Lhsv7X7Lcxr4HHlY+59dVch1Q2yAG7N6oBue4ra7A=;
	b=IdJAvGhJmmZ6KZQywG9h3P4rfoN7JofDYfwlCLqwDja6NCBuw3Q+6j5zIDkgq8fIhh
	5zYj7ZsqJUKNcI715WGuhwuDcX9ivFovZbyzU9vbDHmGJp6tOKsagF25+pxnQllApSBM
	4gmAr5kjIM/qH7UyjzFbw0lSGyMswniZY3enB2GiKtXRq8pzhFoj5aS8Ehfc5FsKH6uh
	jy0K/M1fJB5KgQDo5tiBiN8EK3iSht+pCcJmPuoEUHetGz7+riJM4iz8leAEMeWQJbFM
	KOtzAixyYxWf15+AkTIqOAt12Ws7NDGbf6ewasyP3sQAMcJO4qpJDJqRKC+kU6KgPC0w
	CkMg==
X-Received:	by 10.112.169.66 with SMTP id ac2mr12153979lbc.28.1389683383583;
	Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:09:43 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:09:40 +0400
From:	Vladimir Zhbanov <vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] 4-pin SPST microswitch
Message-ID:	<20140114070940.GA23401@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References:	<20140110201835 DOT GW20344 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz>
	<CAOFvGD5F9on0v+7ug-9qR77f-9OHg5jRLPqQR6wq=-zK4w772Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20140110220844 DOT GZ20344 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz>
	<1389393738 DOT 2083 DOT 33 DOT camel AT AMD64X2 DOT fritz DOT box>
	<20140110230643 DOT GA7128 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz>
	<20140111075639 DOT GA3281 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<20140113231932 DOT GA14749 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20140113231932.GA14749@fi.muni.cz>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:19:32AM +0100, Jan Kasprzak wrote:
...
> : Why not just add "an additional PCB layer", connect the pins there, and
> : then make the layer invisible for further routing?
> 
> 	I have tried that, but it is necessary to add it to the
> "component side" group in order to have the pins of the microswitch
> connected. And as soon as I do it, the connections on that new layer
> start to conflict with the regular connections in the "top" layer".
Why is it necessary? I supposed the new layer must be in a separate
group. If so, its lines shouldn't interfere with another layers while
the connections through pins should reach them. Am I wrong?

> 	Anyway, I would like to have the "pins 1 and 2 are electrially
> connected to each other inside the component" property to be the
> property of the footprint itself, not as something I have to work around.
> Any other ideas?
File a bug report and wait while some developer implements this?

- Raw text -