X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
From:	"Wojciech Kazubski (wk AT ire DOT pw DOT edu DOT pl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Reduce pinnumber attribute
Date:	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 13:02:27 +0100
Message-ID:	<sig.0743b7a74f.30768420.HUeAWzzLFB@jawor>
User-Agent:	KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/3.16.7-24-desktop; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To:	<201510211834.t9LIYn3t026935@envy.delorie.com>
References:	<20151021121348 DOT f3d3f466d0761fbd551f82ce AT gmail DOT com> <201510211834 DOT t9LIYn3t026935 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Assp-Version:	2.4.5(15272) on ASSP.ire.pw.edu.pl
X-Assp-ID:	ASSP.ire.pw.edu.pl
X-Assp-Session:	5950F688 (mail 1)
X-Assp-Original-Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Reduce pinnumber attribute
X-Assp-Client-SSL:	yes
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

> > For almost all if not all cases I guess the pinlabel could be used
> > as symbol pin number. If netlister use pinlabel attribute if no
> > pinnumber attribute is available number of attributes could be
> > reduced.
> 
> I can imagine that if we changed pinnumber to be symbolic, there would
> be cases where pinnumbers would no longer be unique.  If we then
> needed some unique ID for pins, pinseq might make more sense.

Pinseq is used by Spice netlister, so any bipolar transistor must have 
pinseq=1 for collector pin, for example.
But I think that it would be safe to drop pinnumber for sloted componenets.
-- 
Wojciech Kazubski

- Raw text -