Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity (was: Taking advantage of internally connected pins)

2010-02-03 Thread timecop
At the very least, it seems that there should be a way to specify that any pin with the same number satisfies the connection. fairly ridiculous assumption especially with ICs, many of which specifically say something like all GND/VCC pads must be connected. The point of properly drawn symbols

Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity (was: Taking advantage of internally connected pins)

2010-02-03 Thread Dave N6NZ
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:33 AM, timecop wrote: At the very least, it seems that there should be a way to specify that any pin with the same number satisfies the connection. fairly ridiculous assumption especially with ICs, many of which specifically say something like all GND/VCC pads must

Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity (was: Taking advantage of internally connected pins)

2010-02-03 Thread Peter Clifton
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 21:22 -0800, Dave N6NZ wrote: I'm reposting this because the discussion died and I'd like to give the topic a bump -- I think it needs some collective thought by the group. It seems to me that we are missing a way to specify a connectivity satisfaction rule for a

Re: gEDA-user: pcb: All v. Any pin connectivity (was: Taking advantage of internally connected pins)

2010-02-03 Thread Dave N6NZ
On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:59 AM, Peter Clifton wrote: The danger comes if you don't populate the switch. This then causes break in the board connectivity. True enough. But population options are an orthogonal conceptual axis. Not populating the microcontroller causes a loss of functionality,