kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Chris Pavlina <pavlina.chris@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 12:44:45PM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote:
> I wasnt saying its a good idea, but having invisible pins indicates that you
> want to connect to something that is not visible, its literaly there in the
> name. An invisible pin.

I have seen numerous parts made by people who clearly don't get that, as
they think invisible pins are a nice way to represent no-connect pins
visibly in libedit that don't show up in and clutter the schematic. Just
had to clean a bunch of those out of my own library that someone
submitted, and someone else said the official KiCad libs have a bunch
too. Not sure why you think it's so obvious when actual usage shows it's
not.

> 
> I mean, otherwise there could be a stacked pin instead. Im not saying that
> invisible pins are good practise, but thats not really for me to say.
> 
> What is silly is having invisible pins working as no-pins except if they are
> a stacked pin, well that doesnt sound clear to me.

What's silly is using them that way when you could just hide the pin
text. It's only the text that collides and makes them look bad.

Compromise: don't connect invisible pins of type "no connect". Remove
the stupidity in the design without screwing the people who depended on
it.

> 
> -Kristoffer
> 
> On 2017-02-07 12:33, Chris Pavlina wrote:
> >Honestly I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Pins
> >that you can't see should make connections that you can't see to wires
> >that you can? The ONLY imaginable use case for this is stacks of pins.
> >Every other possible case is a mistake.
> >
> >On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:09:44AM +0100, Kristoffer Ödmark wrote:
> >>Honestly I think the invisible pins are supposed to work exactly as they
> >>are, that they should be able to connect, otherwise there are the "no
> >>connect" - pin type or the option of just removing the pin from the symbol
> >>altogether.
> >>
> >>- Kristoffer
> >>
> >>
> >>On 02/07/2017 10:02 AM, Oliver Walters wrote:
> >>>Kristoffer this is good feedback. I did not expect this to get pushed
> >>>straight away, and perhaps there is a way forward that won't break
> >>>schematics.
> >>>
> >>>Relying on implicit connected that is *not* displayed on the schematic
> >>>seems like a very bad idea to me.
> >>>
> >>>I appreciate your use case (I currently have a few symbols that do that
> >>>too).
> >>>
> >>>On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:57 PM, Kristoffer Ödmark
> >>><kristofferodmark90@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:kristofferodmark90@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   This seems dangerous, I have seen a few design where there are 5-10
> >>>   pins hidden under the same pin, excpecting them to be connected.
> >>>
> >>>   I would rather this hidden connections were indicated in some way,
> >>>   this change disconnects lines and might break some users
> >>>   footprints-symbols connection.
> >>>
> >>>   - Kristoffer
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   On 02/07/2017 09:47 AM, Oliver Walters wrote:
> >>>
> >>>       Hi all,
> >>>
> >>>       The attached patch prevents invisible pins from being connected
> >>>       using
> >>>       the wire tool in eeschema.
> >>>
> >>>       a) If you connect a wire endpoint to the same position as a pin
> >>>       endpoint, they are NOT connected visually
> >>>       b) Wires and insivible pins are also ignored during netlist creation
> >>>       c) This does not affect the ability of invisible power-pins to
> >>>       automatically connect to global power labels
> >>>
> >>>       Is the current behavior of connecting invisible pins to wire
> >>>       endpoints
> >>>       desired? Or is it just an aberration?
> >>>
> >>>       If there is a very good reason that pins not visible in the
> >>>       schematic
> >>>       are able to be connected silently?
> >>>
> >>>       before: http://i.imgur.com/3gModvW.png
> >>>
> >>>       after: http://i.imgur.com/r8O7c3Y.png
> >>>
> >>>       (Note the 'dangling' wire-end indication)
> >>>
> >>>       Cheers,
> >>>       Oliver
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>       _______________________________________________
> >>>       Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>>       <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
> >>>       Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>       <mailto:kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>       Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>>       <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
> >>>       More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >>>       <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   --
> >>>    -Kristoffer
> >>>
> >>>   _______________________________________________
> >>>   Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>>   <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
> >>>   Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>   <mailto:kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>   Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>>   <https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers>
> >>>   More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >>>   <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>--
> >> -Kristoffer
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp