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

Re: gEDA-user: Solving the light/heavy symbol problem

> These would be data structures that can contain all information
> relevant to an entity us humans like to build electronics from.

I don't think this conflicts with any of the other ideas we've
proposed.  It's almost like each component would be a micro-library of
its own.

> Note, the plural. Symbols may be alternative, or grouped.

I've worked with EDA systems that did this - you have a symbol "class"
with variants on the graphics.  For example, 2-3 resistor shapes with
compatible pin locations, which you can swap between.  I think this is
a good feature to add, if we can.

Likewise, PCB has footprint variants you should be able to switch
between during layout, like RESC1608{M,N,L}.

> In schematics and in layouts it may be referred to with a unique name, 

Hmmm... we need a way to scope names, I think.  Maybe come up with an
URL structure for specifying library/component/symbol/script/whatnot
from whence we get the information we need.  We already have problems
with same-named files in different directories.

> So the fraction of data base lovers would be catered as well as
> those, who are in favor of files. They could use and share the same
> packages.

Yes, I think we need to get away from the idiom that "symbols are
files, footprints are files" and allow other ways to store these (db,
web, zip, script, etc, as well as files).

> There may be a "no defaults" mode on insertion of a package. If you
> want to set the specifics later, click on the symbol and choose.

Yup, that's the way I usually do it.

geda-user mailing list