X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:20:48 +0100
From: Jan Kasprzak <kas AT fi DOT muni DOT cz>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] 4-pin SPST microswitch
Message-ID: <20140114072048.GD18632@fi.muni.cz>
References: <20140110201835 DOT GW20344 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz>
 <CAOFvGD5F9on0v+7ug-9qR77f-9OHg5jRLPqQR6wq=-zK4w772Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <20140110220844 DOT GZ20344 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz>
 <1389393738 DOT 2083 DOT 33 DOT camel AT AMD64X2 DOT fritz DOT box>
 <20140110230643 DOT GA7128 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz>
 <20140111075639 DOT GA3281 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
 <20140113231932 DOT GA14749 AT fi DOT muni DOT cz>
 <20140114070940 DOT GA23401 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140114070940.GA23401@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10)
X-Muni-Spam-TestIP: 147.251.48.3
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.7 (tirith.ics.muni.cz [147.251.4.35]); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:20:49 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.8 at tirith.ics.muni.cz
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Vladimir Zhbanov wrote:
: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:19:32AM +0100, Jan Kasprzak wrote:
: ...
: > : Why not just add "an additional PCB layer", connect the pins there, and
: > : then make the layer invisible for further routing?
: > 
: > 	I have tried that, but it is necessary to add it to the
: > "component side" group in order to have the pins of the microswitch
: > connected. And as soon as I do it, the connections on that new layer
: > start to conflict with the regular connections in the "top" layer".
: Why is it necessary? I supposed the new layer must be in a separate
: group. If so, its lines shouldn't interfere with another layers while
: the connections through pins should reach them. Am I wrong?

	It would be true for through-hole pins, but as far as I have tried,
it does not work for pads of SMD-mounted components.

: > 	Anyway, I would like to have the "pins 1 and 2 are electrially
: > connected to each other inside the component" property to be the
: > property of the footprint itself, not as something I have to work around.
: > Any other ideas?
: File a bug report and wait while some developer implements this?

	I may do this, but firstly I would like to see an ACK (or at least not
a strong NAK) from the developers in order to not waste their (and my own) time.

-Yenya

-- 
| Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak  <kas at {fi.muni.cz - work | yenya.net - private}> |
| New GPG 4096R/A45477D5 - see http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/pgp-rollover.txt |
| http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/    Journal: http://www.fi.muni.cz/~kas/blog/ |
Please don't top post and in particular don't attach entire digests to your
mail or we'll all soon be using bittorrent to read the list.     --Alan Cox