Re: gEDA-user: net labels question

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to add to this that it would be nice if the backends could
attach the alternative net names to the schematic that that the
schematic capture program was aware of nets and could highlight them
much as PCB does.

Steve M.

On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 08:43 -0700, Steve Meier wrote:
> The netlister should be very tolerant of input net names and the back
> end scripts should enforce/translate net names into target tool
> compliant net names.
> 
> Having the back end set limitations on net names could lead to a
> situation where a design is used for two tools and that those tool
> requirements could cause the incompatible net names. I would not want to
> maintain two sets of schematics to please the two tools.
> 
> The scheme backend is very capable of doing the translating of net
> names. One gotcha of all of this is that the user must be aware that the
> different net names between tools refer to the same net.
> 
> The translation thus should strive to retain the human meaning of the
> net names. Thus don't replace an understandable net name such as "Data0"
> with "GR532978_KA" or some other gibberish.
> 
> Steve M
> 
> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 12:38 +0000, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:29:52 -0400, Dan McMahill wrote:
> > 
> > > actually it is a result of abusing a private pcb interface.  I've ranted
> > > about this here before.
> > 
> > Last time I checked, gsch2pcb produced invalid *.pcb layout files when 
> > confronted with hyphens in footprint names. This is about the worst thing 
> > it could do, as it leaves the user totally clueless on what went wrong. 
> > Has there been any effort to defuse this show stopper? 
> > 
> > 
> > >>> My opinion:  No, but the netlister should convert non-compliant names
> > >>> to compliant names, and conversion back should restore the original
> > >>> name.
> > >> 
> > >> My opinion: Please don't resort to such syntax tricks behind the
> > >> scenes. 
> > >
> > > I don't think there is any choice here unless you want to be incredibly
> > > limited in what gschem allows.
> > 
> > There may may be room for compromise: Allow all sorts of names but 
> > introduce design rules that check for specific the requirements of 
> > specific back ends at the users request. Or let the user choose from a 
> > list of back ends which naming conventions should be enforced. 
> > 
> > ---<(kaimartin)>---
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user



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