[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: gEDA-user: series of gnetlist backend patches

On Jan 3, 2011, at 8:50 AM, kai-martin knaak wrote:

> Stefan Salewski wrote:
>> I wonder if slotdef in a symbol is a good thing at all.
>> If I place an OpAmp in a schematic -- should I decide for dual or
>> quad really at this moment? Or better later in the PCB layout
>> process.
> Without this information gnetlist cannot produce a valid netlist. 

Depends on the kind of netlist you mean. The slotting mechanism gets in the way of simulation. You don't logically need pin numbers, although at the moment gnetlist gets into trouble without them.

> I'd rather not have gnetlist look into *.sch and additionally into 
> *.pcb. Anyway, slot information on the schematic is feature not a
> bug. It facilitates debugging and service.

Different roles, possibly different schematics. As projects get bigger WYSIWYG gets in the way more. In a big project, it makes good sense to separate clean source schematics for design capture from from annotated schematics for debugging and service. That's part of the goal of the lambda-geda tool we've been developing, and the only area where it's developed enough to be useful (it can can flatten hierarchy for documentation).

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.

geda-user mailing list