Re: gEDA-user: Schematic Level DRC DIscussion

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One could argue that that is why we have guile scripts. If you have a
reasonable api access to the libgeda structures you should be able ask
complicated questions about the completness of a design.

So a drc2 type scripts ships with geda but it can be moddified for in
house requirements.

geda is very good about allowing the definition of new attributes. So
adding an attribute named multiOF and another named multiPart can be
done at the configuration scripts with zero need to recompile the c
code.

Steve Meier

On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 23:41 +0000, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:47:51 -0800, Dave N6NZ wrote:
> 
> >> What do we expect the schematic DRC to catch?
> > 
> > The problems that apply to *my* situation and *my* technology.  Also,
> > violations of the in-house design style guides that only I use -- for
> > instance, require a partnum attribute whose value exists in the
> > purchasing database.
> > 
> > In other words, generic DRC is largely pointless.  DRC should be
> > implemented as a DRC engine and a rules database.  Of course, one hopes
> > that a (or two or three) good, reasonably generic rule sets can ship
> > with the release.  End users can start with that and tweak to their own
> > needs.
> 
> Yesss!
> I am strongly in favor of such design checks for both, schematic and 
> layout. Hard coded rules are better than nothing, but necessarily fail to 
> fit important cases. The language to describe rules should be as flexible 
> as possible, allow for exceptions and generally apply all kinds of logic. 
> Sounds like prolog to me...
> 
> ---<(kaimartin)>---



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