Re: gEDA-user: wishful UI

[Paul Tan <pt75234@xxxxxxx>]

Hi ALL,

On Aug 14, 2010; 04:33pm, DJ wrote:

> While I applaud his results (yay!) I think it would be better if a 
bus
> were a bus and a net were a net, so that DRC and gnetlist could be a
> little smarter about detecting errors and resolving conflicts.  One
> example: a single-signal net with two name attributes is an error, 
but
> a multi-signal bus with two name attributes is intentional, as long 
as
> (in my examples) there's at least one N>2-way intersection between
> them.  Also, it means that you can have an unfettered syntax for net
> names, and a separate fettered syntax for nets that are in busses.

> I think it would also be useful to the user if single-signal nets and
> multi-signal busses were visually distinct.  It would help them
> understand the schematic faster.

Yes, the Gnetlist frontend has passed all the
relevent info to the Gnetlist backend, what the
backend needs to do with those info is up to the
backend. A visual NET or BUS in Gschem can be
assigned any attributes and be presented to the
backends, it is up to the backends to decide what
is legal or not, and warn user appropriately.
I fully agree that a common backend can be used to
share functions among similar backends.  Nothing
should prevent us from having mutiple common backends,
each of which can be applied for different CAE/CAD
disciplines, such as Verilog AMS, CASE, Mechanical,
etc. where a visual BUS or NET could mean different
things.

As long as we try not to put contraint in Gschem
and Gnetlist frontend C code (except plug-in), then
we are safe.

Best Regards,
Paul Tan



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