On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 08:28:46 -0400 Ethan Swint <eswint.r...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 08/24/2011 01:15 PM, Colin D Bennett wrote: > > I understand that it is electrical convention to name diode terminal > > anode and cathode, but I reject it as a confusing and ambiguous > > naming convention. > Yes, it's not quite correct, but it is a widely held convention, > unlike numbering the pins 1 and 2 (or 3 or 4). Agreed that A and K certainly avoids ambiguity, as compared to numbering diode pins simply 1 and 2. It is 100% superior as it does convey the required information. > > For my diode symbols and footprints, I choose to name the terminals > > āPā and āNā (for the p-type doped side and the n-type doped side). > If you use "P" and "N", Schottky diodes are now in error. ;) Good point. The moral of the story is: at least name the pins in a way that communicates the pin's function in a clear way. I will have to make my peace with the fact that there is no 100% technically correct way to do so... at least we can avoid errors caused by arbitrarily naming pins 1 and 2. Regards, Colin _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user