Some questions about conventions

Álvaro Lopes alvieboy at
Fri May 22 20:15:17 CEST 2009

Werner Almesberger wrote:
> If a rectangular component is small and/or its inside is crowded,
> I would move the component reference to the top left and the part
> name or specification on the bottom left.

The only problem I see here is that if component is small or name too big, and we use upper/lower for VCC/GND they will overlap. I guess this should be done on
a case-by-case basis.

>> - Shall pins be always the same length (0.3) or can be
>> shortened/lengthened ?
> 300 mil seems to be a reasonable default, but it's not a hard rule.
> In what cases would you think more or less would be better ?

300 mil is OK if pin number is 2 or 3 characters wide. But for small packages (less than 10 pins) there's a lot of wasted space. Decreasing this to 200 mils
would make schematic more compact, while maintaining readability.

> Looks good, thanks ! One idea: for these simple components, I
> think it would help to make their function more obvious if
> their inside logic could be drawn as well.

Yes - but there's a simple problem which might be hard to overcome - we cannot change position of pin name - it's always centred in relation to the pin itself,
so drawing connections to the pin will overlap with the name. Unless on these cases we disable pin name display or move it outside.

See the attached alternative for that component. Does it look better ? I had to place pin names outside. This can cause "inconsistencies" across the schematic,
I'd prefer not to do it.

Sorry for sending this as a .diff, but gmail is blocking the attachment if I use the original .lib.

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: sn74aup1g125.diff

More information about the Gta03 mailing list