Re: gEDA-user: symbol files

[Kelvin Gardiner <kelvin@xxxxxxxx>]

Dan McMahill wrote:
> Bill Gatliff wrote:
>   
>> Kelvin Gardiner wrote:
>>     
>>> Try to add something into current format.
>>>       
>> Why not a new symbol attribute containing a comma-separated list of
>> alternate symbol files for the current symbol?  If that attribute isn't
>> found, then the GUI continues to work like it does today; if the
>> attribute is there, then we come up with some way to indicate via the
>> GUI that "there are two other symbols for this part that you might be
>> interested in...".  Presumably, each symbol file that contained this
>> attribute would also contain footprint information for that symbol.
>>
>> If a symbol was compatible with more than one footprint as-is, then we
>> could use another attribute to provide a comma-separated list of
>> footprint options.
>>     
>
> that is a huge, gigantic "if".
>
> My personal feeling is what is needed is the concept of a component 
> which consists of a symbol and then a mapping to what a backend might 
> need.  For example in a pcb flow, the component would provide the 
> mapping that says
>   

This type of separation was what I was getting at when I mentioned a 
meta file idea in an earlier email. Dan's idea is much clearer than mine.

This idea of an extra layer may not be prefect but it seems conceptual 
cleaner than the other mentioned. But preusummably it require a 
significant change to the code base.

Kelvin





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