Re: gEDA-dev: New diagram (attempt at UML)

[John Doty <jpd-at-NOSPAMwispertel_dot_net>]

On Apr 10, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Steve Meier wrote:

> I don't see how the attributes footprint and source are mutually
> exclusive?

They aren't.

>
> When I am going out a hierarchical branch I don't look to see if a
> symbol has a footprint. Perhaps I should be.

I think so. You don't want to try to lay out the innards of an IC on  
a PC board.

> I should then also mark if
> the page has a physical realization (for PCB) or not (for simulation).

I think if it has a footprint, that's evidence that this is the level  
that goes on a PC board. If it has a model, that's evidence that this  
is the level where you use the model rather than the source for  
simulation (if you have no model and no source, the symbol should  
represent a simulation primitive like a resistor). But Svenn seems to  
have more ambitious ideas: you might want to understand how Cadence  
does it (don't ask me!).

>
> By the way, it has been my intention to make the third step ("flatten
> nets") a function that is called from schem.

Why? Let gschem's focus stay on graphical entry. Use a separate  
utility for netlisting. Very flexible and scriptable. "A program  
should do one thing well".

>
> OK i will take a look at the spice netlist format and start working on
> getting that working.
>
> Steve Meier

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
jpd@noqsi.com




_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev