X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Authenticated-IP: 207.224.51.38 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Subject: Re: [geda-user] gnetlist: allow net= attributes without a pin number From: John Doty In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:45:12 -0600 Message-Id: References: <000301cd644d$75518ab0$5ff4a010$@de> <20120717160113 DOT 2caabc78 AT svelte> <500669D1 DOT 7000206 AT estechnical DOT co DOT uk> To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id q6IDjKl5031171 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 Precedence: bulk On Jul 18, 2012, at 1:58 AM, Krzysztof Kościuszkiewicz wrote: > This has been discussed several times. > The consensus was that hacking this as a special case is frowned upon. > > References: > http://old.nabble.com/gEDA-user:-Attribute-Net-(without-pin-assignment)---for-Power-and-Port-Symbols-td31365921.html > http://old.nabble.com/gEDA-user%3A-gschem%3A-net-attribute-for-power-I-O,-clean-appearance--(no-“%3A1”)-tc31102453.html I don't think there was really consensus. I think Peter Clifton was the main opposition. I'd rather see a more general solution like net:1=foo, but I have no objection to a sane default for the pin number. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ jpd AT noqsi DOT com