Re: gEDA-user: How to deal with single/dual parts?

[Bill Gatliff <bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Clifton wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 14:31 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>   
>> Steven Michalske wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>> * a schematic "symbol" represents some or all of a "component"
>> * a "component" might satisfy the functionality indicated by more than
>> one symbol
>> * a "component" comes in one or more "footprints"
>>     
> You're clearly thinking of PCB layout _____^
>   

Yea, well.... :)

> I would call any non-graphical entity a "circuit" with "Mports" (a
> gnetman term). Symbols either represent sub-circuits defined logically
> by more schematics, or instantiations of physical devices, VHDL
> primitives, VHDL code, ....
>
> "Symbols" are a graphical representation of "circuits", such as to be
> able to connect instances of those circuits using schematics.
>   

I like this concept.  The idea of a symbol actually being a circuit is
so obvious, I'm ashamed it hadn't occurred to me before now.


> NB: I don't just see gEDA useful for schematics / VHDL / IC design
> though.. I draw all kinds of logical diagrams with it. Some make sense
> represented as a hierarchy.
>   

Indeed.  And the converse is also true: gschem is really just a "smart
diagrammer", somewhat like Visio used to be.  If we could think along
those functional primitives, maybe it would be easier to combine them to
build up something that's on the one hand easy for beginners to grok and
at the same time powerful enough for advanced use cases.  Without us
having to reinvent the wheel.


b.g.

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



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