X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 (debian 1:2.8.0~rc1-2) with nmh-1.5
X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: repl
X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: inbox
From: karl AT aspodata DOT se
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Hierarchical design, pin number not needed
In-reply-to: <20160125193136.c1297d2b8e17f291e2250a4c@gmail.com>
References: <20160125193136 DOT c1297d2b8e17f291e2250a4c AT gmail DOT com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
   message dated "Mon, 25 Jan 2016 19:31:36 +0100."
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Message-Id: <20160125204720.4B9C181053E4@turkos.aspodata.se>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 21:47:20 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
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

Niklas Karlsson:
> Then using hierarchical design netlist complain if there are no
> pin numbers in symbol although in pcb it seems everything work
> OK without the pin numbers.
> 
> Pin numbers in symbol for hierarchical design does not seem to
> fulfill any purpose since refdes in symbol and pinlabel in symbol
> link together the schematic. I think it would be better to get rid
> of the warning in netlist if it does not fulfil any function,
> do anybody have a comment?

Since I alway do hierarchical (can't we change that name, it's hard to 
pronounce and hard to write, I have to look it up every time) with
my symbol generator, it's easier to have the some pin routine as for
all other syms.

Regards,
/Karl Hammar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57