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 with nmh-1.7+dev X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: repl X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: inbox From: "karl AT aspodata DOT se [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] net rules In-reply-to: References: <20221218205934 DOT F3A2F85E2912 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> Comments: In-reply-to Roland Lutz message dated "Sun, 18 Dec 2022 23:54:25 +0100." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <20221219014740.18DEF85E2912@turkos.aspodata.se> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022 02:47:40 +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 Roland: > On Sun, 18 Dec 2022, karl AT aspodata DOT se [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > > Why is the two nets in t1 treated as the same net where > > in t2 they are treated as separate ? > > Slanted nets only connect at the endpoints. wiki.geda-project.org/geda:gschem_ug:pins_nets_buses says otherwise: Nets are made up of straight net segments, and net connections are formed either where two net segment ends meet, or where a net segment end meets a net segment midpoint. In t2.sch I have theese two nets: N 0 0 4000 2000 4 N 2000 1000 2000 2000 4 and the second N meets the firsts midpoint. /// It just sounds like an undocumented, illogical and unnecessary feature. Just as two N's be merged to one if they can be, a single N could easily be split in two when a new connection is made ? I suggest that nets are only made via the net endpoints. Regards, /Karl Hammar