gEDA-user: 4-bit_12-LED.png (PNG Image, 1024x768 pixels)

[Svenn Are Bjerkem]

On 4/10/07, ldoolitt at recycle.lbl.gov <ldoolitt at recycle.lbl.gov> wrote:
> Svenn -
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 06:32:31PM +0200, Svenn Are Bjerkem wrote:
> > A solder dot does _explicitely_ tell the reader that there is a
> > connection. The lack of a solder dot does not explicitely tell you
> > [chop]
>
> If you want to tell people that they should use wire jumps in
> their schematics, you have already lost.

No, I am not telling anybody that they *should* use anything. Please
read my contributions to the thread again. I was answering a question
from somebody who asked if there exist a /better/ way to indicate a
non-connection of two crossing lines than a wire jump. In my opinion
there is none. All other means are implicit and requires the reader to
have knowledge on schematic drawing. (Which most readers have)

>
> If you want gschem to have the capability of showing unconnected
> wire crosses with jumps, so you can display schematics that way,
> you have a chance.  Especially if you volunteer to help code.

I never stated any wish for this feature, somebody, I think it was
John Coppens, said that he hadn't seen this feature around for a
while, and I decided to provide the info that Visio, a tool that is
now a part of Microsoft Office, do have this feature, just to tell
that the concept is not totally dead. I don't use gschem for
professional work so I never have to face the question "are those
lines crossing or connected?". Obviously I use Visio.

>
> > I think there must be some kind of misconseption of the use
> > of the words explicite and implicite in my original post.
>
> The correct English spellings are explicit and implicit.

Thanks, I will correct.

-- 
Svenn