Re: gEDA-user: Schematic Level DRC DIscussion

[Dave N6NZ <n6nz@xxxxxxxx>]

Dan McMahill wrote:
> 
>  From my point of view.... if libgeda and the scheme binding were 
> expanded to let you have a really full featured database access via 
> scheme, you could do all sorts of things.  However, many of them may be 
> specific to a particular person, project or company.
> 
> You may decree, for example, that all instances have a company part 
> number attribute filled in.  You may only allow certain vetted symbols 
> from heavy libraries in your design.  Maybe you have a certain minimum 
> grid size you refuse to go below.  Maybe you want strict error checking 
> of pin types.  Perhaps you insist on each schematic having a certain 
> sheet or every symbol having some specific attribute.
> 
> I think there is no one size fits all or maybe even one size fits most 
> solution.  With a full API though, you can make it not too hard to 
> implement most any check.

Well said.  I was trying ineptly to say the same thing, but you give a 
very good list of examples.

So, how far away is the code from having an API that allows full 
functionality for data base access, with proper guards so that no API 
call can leave the database in an inconsistent state?

-dave


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