On Thursday 02 March 2006 22:09, Dan McMahill wrote: > Holger Oehm wrote: > > On Thursday 02 March 2006 18:54, Carlos Nieves Ónega wrote: > > > >>[...] > >>El mié, 01-03-2006 a las 23:33 +0100, Holger Oehm escribió: > >> > >>>As the net 'NoConnection' was ignored somwhere else in the > >>>gnet-drc2.scm, I thought perhaps we could ignore it here, too. > >> > >>Sure! It should be ignored! > >>[...] > > > > Hi, > > > > in the meantime I used gsch2pcb with my schematic to get the > > import for pcb. In pcb I saw that the NoConnection net had been > > imported too! And it was in the rats nest, just like any other net > > (and the autorouter happily connected my nc-pins :-). > > So I decided to modify my copy of gnet-PCB.scm, too. > > (The attached patch is produced with > > "diff -U4 gnet-PCB.scm.orig gnet-PCB.scm" against release 20060123 > > in the geda-gnetlist/scheme directory). > > > > Best regards, > > Holger. > > > I'm generally opposed to using "special" netnames. I've managed to jump > in here late in the discussion, but it seems to me that you shouldn't be > connecting your schematic up as a short. > > Don't forget, you have 26 other backends besides the PCB backend.
Oups. I have to admit that I didnt. > Was this just to keep drc2 from complaining about unconnected pins? Yes, that is where it started. > If so, perhaps we can come up with a better no connect symbol which > doesn't use a fixed net name. No problem, I just started using whats there. If there is a better solution, I will be happy to use that one. Best regards, Holger.
pgpoy792L7aUo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
