How to find the symbol if I found the footprint?

[Piotr]

@bobc

can you in future write what you mean.

I think I have written exactly what I mean:

1. There is no acceptation for my concept (it is simply true)
2. I have no problem with it (I on it).

Even if I would use it wouldn’t mean that everyone except me are stupid but that I had so genius concept which felt down when confronted with reality.

[Rene_Poschl]

I really dislike settings doing double duty. The pin and pad numbers already define which pad is connected to which pin. Adding another functionality (encoding of internally connected) on top of that functionality just screams dirty hack (think about how stupid the double duty of the hidden power pins is).

So in my opinion the “internally connected” info should be provided by some separate information (i would prefer on the symbol level as this is more flexible.)

[eelik]

@Rene_Poschl

(i would prefer on the symbol level as this is more flexible.)

Really? I would say schematic level is more flexible because it can be used only when needed without modifying the symbol itself, so the symbol is fitting for more purposes.

[Rene_Poschl]

Fully specified symbols (I am not against also having the option to define it at the schematic level but really this is a property of the part so it must be set able in the library)

[jmf11]

Thanks a lot for your replies. They helped see where I was wrong. When I browsed the footprints, I did not noticed that for some of those 4 pin switches, that they had 2xpin1 and 2xpin2.

With the datasheet in mind my brain printed 1, 2, 3, 4. So I was looking for a four pins symbol.

Maybe I’m not the first one having this " misunderstanding" but my short term issue is solved now.

Thanks for the help !

JMF

[Piotr]

@Rene_Poschl

Adding another functionality (encoding of internally connected) on top of that functionality

As I understand you, functionality you describe is reached by having separate number per symbol pin and per footprint pad (may be I don’t follow you right). Using the same pad number to mark internal connections seemed for me the simplest method to be used, and I don’t understand it as encoding the next functionality with the same.
I don’t understand the problems there were discussed in my bug report because I know too little about KiCad internal working. I’m not sure if using another method of marking internal connection helps to solve any of those problems. If it helps I am certainly for such solution and not using the same pad number for it, but if not I just think the simplest and easiest to understand for anyone is that if symbol pin has the same number then several footprint pads then that pin is just connected to all of them.