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

Re: gEDA-user: Soft and Hard symbols

Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 16:05 +0900, John Doty wrote:
>> Note that there's a bit of terminology confusion. gschem actually
>> manipulates segments of nets (other tools sometimes call these
>> "wires"), while "net" in EE theory is usually a topological whole,
>> where the connection is assumed to be structureless.
> wires is a useful distinction here, although it sounds like it implies
> something physical. I'll try to call them "net segments" from now on.
> Sometimes a gnetlist backend might wish to request the connectivity of a
> net (the topological whole). IMO libgeda should be able to provide that.
> (A library or convenience function if you will).

It does not happen very often, but in this point my opinion disagrees
with John's, I think.  The whole point of libgeda and gnetlist is to
express connectivity between pins.  Machine-interpreting meaning into
the details of the individual net segments is a confusing concept, that
should not be encouraged by the tools.  If such things need to be
expressed, I'd introduce a new type of symbol, and teach the gnetlist
backend that needs those semantics to treat both/all connections to that
symbol as the same net, but with different attributes.


geda-user mailing list