Re: gEDA-user: [RFC 5/6] Use of X server clipboard

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John,

For a simulator, wouldn't you want to select a section of a schematic
and say simulate this?

I think, thinking about scenarios leads to requirements. So to say be
able to select an area of a schematic and then transmute that schematic
section into the needs of the next application.

If the next application doesn't support the paste then of course I would
like that LOGGED.

Steve Meier

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 21:25 -0700, John Doty wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2009, at 8:48 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> >
> >>> A program should do one thing well.  Capturing circuit information
> >>> (regardless of what that is) and providing that to a layout system
> >>> (regardless of what *that* is) is that one thing here.
> >>
> >> As stated by you, that's two things.
> >
> > Sigh.  I'll try to word it as one thing.  "Be a design capture
> > front-end for layout systems".  Please don't get all anal-retentive on
> > me.
> 
> That's still not one thing, or will pcb support ASIC layouts in the  
> future? Furthermore, we want gschem to be a front-end for simulation  
> systems. And what is the IEC60417 symbol library for? gschem does  
> "one thing well" but that "one thing" goes far beyond what pcb or any  
> other program can serve as back end for. That's how well factored,  
> flexible software works.
> 
> >
> >> Yes, let's not set our scope too narrow. Specializing on the gEDA-
> >> pcb flow is exactly the sort of narrow scope I wish to avoid.
> >
> > That's not what I meant, and you know it.  I get enough of that crap
> > at work, I don't need it here too.
> 
> But I don't know that. I fear gEDA is evolving toward specific  
> scenarios that don't reflect the needs of my projects. And despite  
> the best intentions of the developers, being scenario-driven will  
> inevitably reduce gEDA's flexibility. That's what happens as software  
> evolves, but it happens faster if nobody digs in their heels a bit.
> 
> >
> > gschem should specialize at being a way to get circuit designs from
> > the user's brain to a layout system.
> 
> Too far. gschem should capture topology. That's what a schematic  
> represents. Layout is a separate problem. Geometry and topology are  
> distinct mathematical concepts for good reason.
> 
> >   I don't care which layout system
> > it is, but once the user has chosen one, gschem should integrate with
> > it fairly well.  If the user copies from gschem and pastes in pcb, it
> > should do the right thing for feeding information into pcb.  I don't
> > care if it's the gschem executable, some scheme script, a callout to
> > gnetlist, or email to your mother's neighbors that makes it happen.  I
> > just want it to happen, and I want it to appear seemless and obvious
> > to the user.
> 
> Please don't minimize the subtlety and complexity here. This is not  
> trivial, and is certain to have adverse consequences for flexibility  
> that we cannot anticipate. But most combinations of a well-factored  
> set of tools will work.
> 
> >
> > If gschem has to use a bunch of specialized "do only one thing well"
> > helpers, so be it.  I just don't think it's right to expect all the
> > users to know how to run each program separately.  gschem should have
> > enough hooks in it to allow any layout system to (somewhat) seamlessly
> > integrate with it, through whatever helpers and middleware are needed.
> > Users shouldn't have to exit gschem, run gattrib, exit that, run
> > gsch2pcb, run pcb, exit that, run "make", run gschem again, ad
> > infinitum.  They *can* but they shouldn't *have to*.
> 
> Exit? Not necessary. Just a window per GUI and a window for "make".
> 
> >
> >> but gEDA->Osmond is working so well for my MIT projects that it
> >> makes me wonder.
> >
> > So use Osmond, I don't care.  You should be able to copy/paste from
> > gschem to Osmond too, and have the right footprint show up there.  Or
> > did you want a separate gschem_to_osmond_gui_cut_paste program to do
> > that for you?
> 
> No, I want to keep separate things separated. Edit schematic in  
> gschem, "fs", "make", layout in Osmond (or mail design files to the  
> Osmond expert). I don't expect radical cut and paste to work.  
> Mathematica (one of my favorite tools) tries that, and often fails,  
> although Wolfram has vastly more resources than we do.
> 
> 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



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