X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-help-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-help AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 with nmh-1.7+dev
X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: repl
X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: inbox
From: "karl AT aspodata DOT se [via geda-help AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-help AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-help AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-help] using net names on multiple sub schematics used by single symbol
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2012081605590.1246@nimbus>
References: <c6376b29-a72c-6ae0-1b39-081ecb97ec1c AT gmx DOT de> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2012041901490 DOT 1174 AT nimbus> <3e21c34b-571c-8762-7e68-f096bcf10a37 AT gmx DOT de> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2012081605590 DOT 1246 AT nimbus>
Comments: In-reply-to Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org>
   message dated "Tue, 08 Dec 2020 16:20:12 +0100."
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <20201209082005.8890C8512092@turkos.aspodata.se>
Date: Wed,  9 Dec 2020 09:20:05 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Reply-To: geda-help AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-help AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Roland Lutz:
...
> Components with a netname= attribute are considered power symbols, i.e., 
> their only pin is connected to a named net.  Typical examples for this 
> would be "netname=GND" or "netname=3.3V".  The older way of doing this is 
> using a "net=3.3V:1" attribute, but this has the disadvantage that you 
> can't use that attribute as the visible text without having an ugly ":1" 
> suffix.  With the netname= attribute, you can draw a single "power rail" 
> symbol and change the attribute value to whichever power rail you want it 
> to connect to.  (In practice, you'll probably want to have a separate, 
> visually different symbol for GND.)
...

All thoose things with net/netname/portname is simply confusing,
why not only use one attribute name for all this ?

Also confusing if the talk about "power symbols". It is all about
some named net, which is useful for power nets _among other forms of
nets_.

Why not get rid of the "netname attribute attached to a net", since
you can simply attach a net symbol instead to get the same thing ?

Regarding the ugly ":1", cannot a missing :<number> just default to :1
(this has been up to discussion before) ?

Regarding portname, I have not heard about it before but I can find it
in http://wiki.geda-project.org/geda:symbols,
<<
 I/O port symbols
 Subschematics are hooked up to the schematic from which they are
 instantiated via port symbols. Instead of a refdes= attribute,
 port symbols have a portname= attribute; for each pin on the
 subschematic symbol, there should be exactly one I/O port in
 the subschematic whose portname= attribute matches the pinlabel=
 attribute of the pin. Port symbols mustn't have a pinnumber=
 attribute on their own pin. 
>>

I don't know why the text insists on "exactly one", since nets has
the tendency to be useful when there is "more than one".

From what I can see, the portname is just a net attribute without
the ugly :1, so what does the portname way of doing it solve versus
the "old" net way ?

Regards,
/Karl Hammar