Rename existing floating wire segment in board

Morten Leikvoll wrote:

If a signal segment has the signal name of an existing net present in

the schematic, Eagle refuses to rename it. You will get "please do this

in the schematic" message.

 

Now, if this segment was "floating", meaning it was not connected to any

of its target pins, or ending in airwires, why prevent this renaming? I

do support this "error" message when it is connected to one or more

target pins (although sometimes I would like to override it).

if I understand you correctly, you want to 'reuse' an already routed

track for a different net.

After the rename the original net then would have an air wire instead

of the track.

--

Lorenz

On 25.10.2016 16:57, Lorenz wrote:

Morten Leikvoll wrote:

If a signal segment has the signal name of an existing net present in

the schematic, Eagle refuses to rename it. You will get "please do this

in the schematic" message.

 

Now, if this segment was "floating", meaning it was not connected to any

of its target pins, or ending in airwires, why prevent this renaming? I

do support this "error" message when it is connected to one or more

target pins (although sometimes I would like to override it).

 

if I understand you correctly, you want to 'reuse' an already routed

track for a different net.

After the rename the original net then would have an air wire instead

of the track.

 

Correct. I am doing large designs and sometimes I find a long wire

segment already laid down is more suitable for a different signal, or I

simply want to swap two wire segments because it will ease routing.

On 10/26/2016 03:18 AM, Morten Leikvoll wrote:

On 25.10.2016 16:57, Lorenz wrote:

Morten Leikvoll wrote:

If a signal segment has the signal name of an existing net present in

the schematic, Eagle refuses to rename it. You will get "please do this

in the schematic" message.

 

Now, if this segment was "floating", meaning it was not connected to

any

of its target pins, or ending in airwires, why prevent this renaming? I

do support this "error" message when it is connected to one or more

target pins (although sometimes I would like to override it).

 

if I understand you correctly, you want to 'reuse' an already routed

track for a different net.

After the rename the original net then would have an air wire instead

of the track.

 

 

Correct. I am doing large designs and sometimes I find a long wire

segment already laid down is more suitable for a different signal, or

I simply want to swap two wire segments because it will ease routing.

 

I'm listening intently to this thread.  I've had this need on numerous

occasions.

Jorge?  Care to chime in?

    - Chuck

I'm listening intently to this thread.  I've had this need on numerous

occasions.

 

Jorge?  Care to chime in?

 

    - Chuck

 

 

Hi All,

I can't speak for the devs, but I think that they choose to err on the

side of caution and just completely forbid net renaming on the board.

In this particular case I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason

for this behaviour. I think the risk would be that if the floating

segment has the same name as an existing net then renaming that segment

would rename the whole net.

The proper thing to do in this situation would be to have a dialog

similar to the polygon where you would have the options:

-rename only this segment

-rename entire net

Currently no such dialog is setup on the board side. I do think it is a

reasonable request, a few things in EAGLE would have to change though.

Best Regards,

Jorge Garcia

On 27.10.2016 21:28, Jorge Garcia wrote:

I'm listening intently to this thread.  I've had this need on numerous

occasions.

 

Jorge?  Care to chime in?

 

    - Chuck

 

 

 

Hi All,

 

I can't speak for the devs, but I think that they choose to err on the

side of caution and just completely forbid net renaming on the board.

 

In this particular case I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason

for this behaviour. I think the risk would be that if the floating

segment has the same name as an existing net then renaming that segment

would rename the whole net.

 

The proper thing to do in this situation would be to have a dialog

similar to the polygon where you would have the options:

-rename only this segment

-rename entire net

>

Currently no such dialog is setup on the board side. I do think it is a

reasonable request, a few things in EAGLE would have to change though.

I see this as a valid concern. Especially when you edit a board alone.

For sch+brd consistant projects, renaming a net should be a sch only

feature, but I do see that would cause some inconsistancy and potential

backward compatibility ulp issues.

There are sexy ways around it, but that means you have to stop making

command line unfriendly and forced requesters (who decided to use that

in die hard command line based platform like Eagle anyway?). Do it, like

suggested in older posts, with optional command line arguments instead,

and you can keep all the default options legacy-like. This goes for all

the existing requesters too. (Yes I know you can use set confirm, but

that option is incomplete for a lot of the requests).

On 27.10.2016 21:28, Jorge Garcia wrote:

I'm listening intently to this thread.  I've had this need on numerous

occasions.

 

Jorge?  Care to chime in?

 

    - Chuck

 

 

 

Hi All,

 

I can't speak for the devs, but I think that they choose to err on the

side of caution and just completely forbid net renaming on the board.

 

In this particular case I'm having a hard time thinking of a good reason

for this behaviour. I think the risk would be that if the floating

segment has the same name as an existing net then renaming that segment

would rename the whole net.

 

The proper thing to do in this situation would be to have a dialog

similar to the polygon where you would have the options:

-rename only this segment

-rename entire net

>

Currently no such dialog is setup on the board side. I do think it is a

reasonable request, a few things in EAGLE would have to change though.

I see this as a valid concern. Especially when you edit a board alone.

For sch+brd consistant projects, renaming a net should be a sch only

feature, but I do see that would cause some inconsistancy and potential

backward compatibility ulp issues.

There are sexy ways around it, but that means you have to stop making

command line unfriendly and forced requesters (who decided to use that

in die hard command line based platform like Eagle anyway?). Do it, like

suggested in older posts, with optional command line arguments instead,

and you can keep all the default options legacy-like. This goes for all

the existing requesters too. (Yes I know you can use set confirm, but

that option is incomplete for a lot of the requests).