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

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

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:43:08AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Hierarchy isn't the only reuse scenario. Consider transition from
> > breadboard to prototype to production. A top-level schematic might
> > not change, even though attributes of parts might change (different
> > packages, tighter specs, ...). In that case, the instance-specific
> > data can't be in *any* schematic.
> Up to now, we've been using the schematic as the "master" files for
> the design.  Perhaps this is a bad idiom?  Perhaps "the design" should
> be some other data, which uses the schematic as but one of its inputs?

Maybe in the backend it is a bad idiom (that is, gschem should be
saving the schematic and "design" as separate beasts, maybe in a
gzipped collection or something). But from the user's perspective it
makes sense.

When you first set out to design a circuit, you start by scribbling
out a block-level schematic, then fleshing it out into a "real"
schematic, long before you care about specific parts or footprints
or decoupling caps.

Probably these high-level schematics would be scribbled on the back
of an envelope or on a whiteboard rather than in gschem, but I think
it reflects a "schematic-oriented" view of the circuit for most people.

Plus, simulations and ratsnests depend on the schematic data, so it
is a sensible base for design work.

Andrew Poelstra
Email: asp11 at sfu.ca OR apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/

geda-user mailing list