On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:20 AM, C P Tarun wrote:
geda and pcb don't care if the pinnumbers are numbers or strings. As
long as they are the same.
From a preference point of view I like the pin numbers to match the
component data sheet.
This is the part I too would have thought was natural. I would have
thought
that "B", "C", and "E" were more sensible pin numbers in the symbols
than "1", "2", and "3".
Also, I have read the section about transistor pin mapping between
symbol and footprint here:
http://geda.seul.org/docs/current/tutorials/gsch2pcb/transistor-
guide.html
The author specifies two schemes for achieving this, and chooses one.
I would have thought a third scheme would be better, where all
transistor
symbols have pins labelled "B", "C", and "E", and there will be
different
versions of the TO92 (or TO5 or whatever) footprint, called "TO92-
EBC",
"TO92-CBE", and so on.
To preserve my sanity, I simply prefer that the footprints have pin
numbers 1, 2 and 3 in the usual order. That way I have ONE TO92
footprint that can be used with any TO92 device (like a voltage
regulator or a reference or temperature sensor or whatever, in
addition to transistors).
And people think heavy symbols are a problem! Multiple footprints
that are identical except for the pin numbers sounds like overkill to
me.
What is the general opinion about keeping symbol pin numbers for
transistors as "B", "C" and "E"? Isn't this better?
See above.
-a
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user