X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:09:31 -0400 Message-Id: <201507140209.t6E29V39029166@envy.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: (message from John Doty on Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:44:43 -0600) Subject: Re: [geda-user] gEDA/gschem still alive? References: <20150707060409 DOT GB14357 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <1436287952 DOT 678 DOT 26 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C0F7E DOT 7010009 AT neurotica DOT com> <1436295556 DOT 678 DOT 91 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de> <559C3778 DOT 4000105 AT neurotica DOT com> <20150708072021 DOT GB13243 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es> <20150713082342 DOT GB26809 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es> <201507131725 DOT t6DHPU2V010794 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> 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 > Not at all. At the top level of a complicated board you get an > incomprehensible wad of lines if you try to diagram it. A table can > be much more useful. Why do people insist on telling me I'm wrong about how *I* do *my* tasks? I'm not an idiot and I've done this before. I don't want a table of connections. I want something that tells me how the board functions, because I'm not the original designer. > But why complicate the tool, when the toolkit approach solves this > without the complication? Because not everyone wants to do things your way. *I* prefer to put the hidden connections and decoupling caps near the chips they affect. Others prefer to put all those on a separate page, or omit them completely.