X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-help-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-help AT delorie DOT com
X-Authority-Analysis:	v=2.0 cv=YP4dOG6x c=1 sm=0 a=B9/DK6xY5wK3xH4TzFH5YA==:17 a=td0c2MPPRQEA:10 a=orCKFiEqKuoA:10 a=b3guAK4Y-aUA:10 a=05ChyHeVI94A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=6Yp3PVbYLLYA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=QfKxxUxMAAAA:8 a=MXK7bSvf0fWZQqf9sX8A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=B9/DK6xY5wK3xH4TzFH5YA==:117
X-Cloudmark-Score:	0
X-Originating-IP:	74.79.120.14
Message-ID:	<50789391.3010305@twcny.rr.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:02:57 -0400
From:	"Tom, KC2ZAT" <kc2zat AT twcny DOT rr DOT com>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	geda-help AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-help] Need some help with gsymcheck warning messages
References:	<5072321B DOT 5060406 AT twcny DOT rr DOT com> <20121008163144 DOT GA11303 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <20121008100135 DOT 1ba5e93c AT svelte> <20121008173150 DOT GB27176 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <20121008105006 DOT 46086358 AT svelte>
In-Reply-To:	<20121008105006.46086358@svelte>
X-Enigmail-Version:	1.4.4
Reply-To:	geda-help AT delorie DOT com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks for all of the input.
I finally did something that I think will make all sides happy.
Including me.  ;-)

I took the pins off that were connected to the nets.
I replaced the pin numbers and the description with simple text
strings in green.

This way, my connector is still self documenting and, hopefully, it
will not start any never ending debates.  :-)

Thanks for the help.

Tom, KC2ZAT
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein

On 10/08/2012 1:50 PM, Colin D Bennett wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:31:50 +0400 Vladimir Zhbanov 
> <vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 10:01:35AM -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 20:31:44 +0400
>> 
>>> But won't it be unconventional and confusing, at the very 
>>> least, to have pins on the symbol that are also secretly 
>>> connected to a net?
>> No, see below.
>> 
>>> I have seen symbols with hidden power/ground pins, and symbols
>>>  with all pins visible, but never one where visible pins have a
>>>  hidden connection to a net.
>> 
>> There is at least one very useful and widely used symbol: 
>> gnd-1.sym :)
> 
> Touché.
> 
> Regards, Colin
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQeJOLAAoJEOjHtZ9Au1BtVfcIAJF2z65wTt7t2lRBiRpX15x8
0xxX65RjKqGLs7I1WxxCZ4UWERi7JzED5yRKXaVqdN7rAAFkeQ66t2vZ/Yth56us
m//NR+H3g65n1VQ6Wpzbia2PNk1epWsTXVbMUc5N6p1nkNIvLNNY3obBtAf9u4mz
wnXpm4xHCe8z1cEZId6B3KGTs75cexEjjzQ4IF2ATdEa/InzPsWgN1kMbD8DEcKX
qzwMpWt9gE3rFiGsSRsQsoUN/sC/ZynZpbHJGD41tUJSDbfPqOgDfotKqpGpC2q/
ozDyKIbgdKbx0VRO6j//cpABqA97FWy8PP3pysOrpVnJPkJVFSNxFoqMLAHYtTM=
=6wiO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- Raw text -