Re: gEDA-user: Power (and other non-graphical) pins

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Joerg wrote:

> John Doty wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>
>>> John Doty wrote:
>>>> On Jan 13, 2009, at 5:12 PM, r wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTW, analog IC guys long since have given up using implicit power
>>>>> connections
>>>> Another sweeping statement from a narrow point of view, I think. A
>>>> counter-example is in order:
>>>>
>>>> http://research.kek.jp/people/ikeda/openIP/
>>>>
>>>> If you can't read Japanese, just look at the diagrams and SPICE
>>>> subcircuits. Should be clear enough.
>>>>
>>> Yes, no surprise there -> schematics:
>>>
>>> http://research.kek.jp/people/ikeda/openIP/openIP_16.pdf
>>
>> Of course. For building blocks at this level, that's entirely
>> appropriate. It's when you build complex multichannel systems from
>> these blocks that schematics become incomprehensible.
>>
>
> That's when we move over to block diagrams. Not just for chip designs,
> also for large board level designs.

Sure. But you can't extract a netlist from a block diagram. So, you  
need something more. Easy enough with gEDA, as I've demonstrated.

>
>>>
>>>> The key strength of gEDA here is that you can do this any way you
>>>> need to for your specific project.
>>>>
>>> Well, as we have seen with slotted parts, not any way it's needed.
>>
>> I think you're confusing wants and needs. It can do slotting just
>> fine, but it can't read your mind.
>>
>
> They will be messed up upon renumbering. But who knows, someday it  
> might
> get fixed.

I wrote a one-shot AWK script to renumber a particular design using  
slotted parts once. It had a bunch of limitations, so I never  
submitted it. Using hierarchy to divide the design up works better,  
don't have tricky renumbering problems there.

But remember, "fixed" for you probably means "broken" for somebody else.

>
>
>>> But
>>> it can get there, which is why I mentioned the problem.
>>
>> If you wanted to, you could no doubt solve it with a little scripting
>> (I'm still not sure exactly what you want: I can't read your mind
>> either). But you'd have to cross a line you've drawn. gEDA is for
>> those who enjoy crossing such lines, I think.
>>
>
> Didn't draw a line, but I am not a programmer.

That's the line. What makes you think you need to be a programmer to  
write programs?

I'm not even an EE, I'm a physicist (at least that's what it says on  
my degrees). But whatever the job takes. Increasingly, design *is*  
programming. Software takes over from hardware as it can. Music  
synthesizers used to be racks of VCO's. Understanding when, where,  
and how to move that line is part of the job. Both in processes and  
products.

> Sure, I could figure it
> out and somehow attempt to fix it but there are people in this  
> community
> who could do that a lot better.

The one who has the clearest vision of what the problem is is often  
the best fixer. That's one of the strengths of free software.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




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