Re: gEDA-user: Yet another netlister

[al davis <ad252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Saturday 15 August 2009, r wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:12 AM, al 
davis<ad252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > A netlister needs to work for all symbols.  No exceptions.
>
> Why? Should it work even for symbols without models or
> incompatible models (e.g. verilog RTL in an analog AC
> simulation)?

You cannot possibly know about all possible symbols that may be 
created in the future.  So, the netlister cannot have explicit 
knowledge of them.  It must work in general.

> > For
> > Spice format, you can go nuts with all of the special
> > cases. There are ways to control it, but you can't fix it
> > completely.
> >
> > This means the netlister cannot have explicit knowledge of
> > any particular symbol.
>
> Well, currently it has. I would actually prefer it the other
> way around, so that some particular symbols (especially
> primitive devices) had explicit knowledge of a netlist
> format.

You cannot possibly know about all possible netlist formats a 
symbol might be used for.

A netlister for an irregular output format might need to key on 
some attribute to decide what to do, but this is not the symbol 
itself.

You could define an attribute that identifies special 
properties, and the netlister could key off of that.  How about 
a "special_target" attribute, where you could specify special 
treatment.



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