kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Andy Peters <devel@xxxxxxxxx>]

> On Aug 2, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Chris Pavlina <pavlina.chris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Moving this to a new thread.
> 
>> On 8/2/2016 7:16 AM, Chris Pavlina wrote:
>>> My implementation had a large number of symbols, would have allowed
>>> user-supplied arbitrary symbols if I had finished it, and automatically
>>> selected a symbol based on net name _exactly_ as Clemens suggested. All
>>> of these issues are solved.
>> 
>> How difficult would it be to apply the same selection criteria for power
>> symbols?  The more you explain what you have done with power label the
>> more it seems like you could have done the same thing with power
>> symbols.  This would save implementing a new object and the file
>> formatting to support it.  Maybe I'm missing something here but I just
>> don't see how a new label type that looks like a power symbol is
>> different from a power symbol that already provides the same functionality.
> 
> It provides the same functionality. I just think it's more consistent
> from the user's perspective - see my comment earlier about them /being/
> labels, functionally speaking - and not that much more trouble to
> implement.

One user’s perspective (mine).

A power symbol is NOT a component. It doesn’t have a footprint, it doesn’t go on the BOM. So it should not be in a component (symbol) library.

It really is (or at least should be) nothing more than a specialized global net label.

-a