Subscripts in pin names

J

Joel Kolstad

Guest
In data books, the draftsmen who create the symbols will show names like "VCC"
with the "CC" subscripted as you'd expect. Does anyone know of a schematic
capture tool that supports that use of sub- and super-scripts in pin names?

Thanks,
---Joel Kolstad
 
On Jun 22, 3:49 am, "Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesS...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In data books, the draftsmen who create the symbols will show names like "VCC"
with the "CC" subscripted as you'd expect. Does anyone know of a schematic
capture tool that supports that use of sub- and super-scripts in pin names?

Thanks,
---Joel Kolstad
In majority of the cases, subscripts or superscripts are appended as
text next to V, so VDD or VCC would work just fine. Care must be taken
in the cases where some chips have VCC and VDD as power connections
and they are hidden in the schematic. You should explicitly connect
VCC, VDD with your power source which comes out of a regulator like
V3_3 or V5_0 or direct input as V5_0

Hope this helps

Mansoor
 
"Mak" <mansoor.naseer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183358741.239948.291310@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
In majority of the cases, subscripts or superscripts are appended as
text next to V, so VDD or VCC would work just fine.
Sure, they "work" just fine, but it's too bad that CAD software doesn't make
it easy to have them *look* the way they were intended as well.

Care must be taken
in the cases where some chips have VCC and VDD as power connections
and they are hidden in the schematic.
These days I never hide power pins... it's quite uncommon today to have
designs that don't have multiple rail voltages running around.

---Joel
 
On 2 Jul, 22:51, "Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Mak" <mansoor.nas...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1183358741.239948.291310@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

In majority of the cases, subscripts or superscripts are appended as
text next to V, so VDD or VCC would work just fine.

Sure, they "work" just fine, but it's too bad that CAD software doesn't make
it easy to have them *look* the way they were intended as well.

Care must be taken
in the cases where some chips have VCC and VDD as power connections
and they are hidden in the schematic.

These days I never hide power pins... it's quite uncommon today to have
designs that don't have multiple rail voltages running around.

---Joel
It would be a pretty stupid engineer who didnt know what VCC was if it
wasnt in superscript !
I use up to 8 character net names in my software and it works fine.
 
"Marra" <cresswellavenue@talktalk.net> wrote in message
news:1183506353.891103.284900@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
It would be a pretty stupid engineer who didnt know what VCC was if it
wasnt in superscript !
I use up to 8 character net names in my software and it works fine.
You're missing the point: Just because one can get by without subscripts,
lower case, (effectively) unlimited length pin names, etc. is no reason to not
support them in a piece of software. Heck, people got along just fine on PCs
when file names were restricted to upper-case only, 8.3 characters, no spaces,
etc... but I'd wager that most people wouldn't want to go back to that system,
now that they're used to being able to do more.
 
On 5 Jul, 17:05, "Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Marra" <cresswellave...@talktalk.net> wrote in message

news:1183506353.891103.284900@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

It would be a pretty stupid engineer who didnt know what VCC was if it
wasnt in superscript !
I use up to 8 character net names in my software and it works fine.

You're missing the point: Just because one can get by without subscripts,
lower case, (effectively) unlimited length pin names, etc. is no reason to not
support them in a piece of software. Heck, people got along just fine on PCs
when file names were restricted to upper-case only, 8.3 characters, no spaces,
etc... but I'd wager that most people wouldn't want to go back to that system,
now that they're used to being able to do more.
But you have to draw a line somewhere, you cant go on adding functions
and expansions indefinitely.
At some point you have to sell the software.
I am not Microsoft just a one man band.
Software is like that fairground game where you hit a man on the head
with a hammer and a little later another man pops up somewhere else.
Thats a bit like debugging. Keep it simple and you shouldnt get as
many bugs.
Get into bloatware and you will never meet deadlines or in some cases
ever finish coz the plug has been pulled.
 
"Marra" <cresswellavenue@talktalk.net> wrote in message
news:1183761522.076243.43090@g13g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
But you have to draw a line somewhere, you cant go on adding functions
and expansions indefinitely.
Sure you can. And keep in mind that, if the features are truly useful, if you
don't add them, sooner or later your competitors will.

At some point you have to sell the software.
Yes, version 1.0. Then you sell version 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, then 95, 2000, XP,
Vista... oh wait, that's Microsoft, isn't it? But everyone else does much the
same thing these days.

Thats a bit like debugging. Keep it simple and you shouldnt get as
many bugs.
I'd modify that to Einstein's "Everything should be made as simple as
possible, but no simpler."

I can take programs I wrote in C back in the 1980s and re-write them today in
something like Python in 1/4 the time. Are they bigger? Oh yeah, absolutely.
Are they slower? On a number of clock cycles basis, yes they are --
significantly so. Are they still good, "solid" bits of code? Sure. What
still matters most? Development time and ease of maintainability. Relaxing
the standards for memory footprint and number of raw CPU clock cycles helps
both of these considerably.

Get into bloatware and you will never meet deadlines or in some cases
ever finish coz the plug has been pulled.
Agreed, this is a significant danger. Good companies often prioritize
software development into features the software "must" have, "would be really
great to have," and "appeals to some obscure user in Pocatello" categories.
 
Joel Kolstad wrote:
Marra wrote:
At some point you have to sell the software.

Yes, version 1.0. Then you sell version 2.0, 3.0, 3.1,
then 95, 2000, XP, Vista...

You forgot to mention the codebase fork. ;-)

oh wait, that's Microsoft, isn't it?
But everyone else does much the same thing these days.
When your corp has so many (acquired) products
that some compete with others
and you make decisions about which ones to abandon,
then, yeah--an ECAD corp looks a lot like the Borg.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top