x is actually assigned by kicad, if you set the annotation choice to “Start to sheet number100 and use first free number" or "Start to sheet number1000 and use first free number”. I see absolutely no problems with that.
I simply still maintain the position that if one is not 100% certain, that KiCad is not yet refined enough to keep users from having future difficulties when using the same file for multiple sheets.
I really can’t understand what is the problem with this approach. Excerpt from the kicad manual:
A hierarchy can be:
simple: a given sheet is used only once
complex: a given sheet is used more than once (multiples instances)
flat: which is a simple hierarchy, but connections between sheets are not drawn.
Eeschema can deal with all these hierarchies.
This means that kicad is meant to be used in this way, in fact, this is the most efficient way of eradicating errors, if there are identical functional blocks in a circuit.
@v923z Thanks, Tholtan. In fact, the name of the sheet is not shown into the .sch file.
@Andy_P To make you happy, the real names of the sheets are Bridge1, Bridge2, Bridge3 and Bridge4, being the sheet file Bridge.sch
Same here – the feature works, and works well.
I can’t see a case where a symbol has different footprints for different channels when the schematic is otherwise identical. It really doesn’t make any sense.
The problem with having the ability to have a different footprint for the same symbol in this manner is that it is at cross purposes the idea of atomic parts. Remember that a symbol for an atomic part gives the engineer everything needed to describe a design, including the footprint for the layout and a part number for the BOM.
And if you change the footprint for that op-amp, then you’ve changed the part you need to order, which means the BOM can’t be reasonably generated, not without user intervention (which is to be avoided).