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

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:33 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:21:10 -0700, John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> I hold that a "slot" is related to a multiplicity of identical units
>>> within the chip, and the slotting mechanism was _not_ intended as an
>>> arbitrary way of fudging different combinations of pin-numbers into
>>> the
>>> netlist in various situations.
>>
>> Intent doesn't matter here. A clean design performs a simple, clean
>> function. Intent is provided by the user.
>
> Fine. Then you will agree with me that the current slotting  
> mechanism *does
> not* work as designed.  This is a fact, unless you equate "as  
> designed"
> with "as currently implemented."

No, I disagree completely. This is not a fact. Or can you read Ales'  
mind? It seems to me that his design methodology seeks simple,  
transparent *behavior* (hurray!). The design "as currently  
implemented" is perhaps not the best example of success here, but  
it's certainly simpler and more transparent than the alternatives  
others advocate.

>
> And, furthermore, if I/we fixed it to work as designed, some users  
> would be
> up in arms -- because they have been using the mechanism in a way  
> contrary
> to its design, and fixing it to work as designed has broken their
> schematics.

The mechanism remaps pins via a slotdef attribute selected via a slot  
attribute. Period. How that mechanism is to be used is up to the  
user. Using it in a way that *you* wouldn't use it isn't "contrary to  
its design".

>
> Which is what Peter C. was saying, and which point you have ignored.
>
> Note that this same point applies to several other aspects of  
> gEDA.  If,
> when users state that they are taking advantage of bugs,

There is no bug here. Just a reasonably simple, transparent, flexible  
mechanism.

The real problem is that if somebody wants something different, you  
can't say: "Here, install this script and put this line in your gafrc".

> we do not point
> out that they *are* bugs and encourage them not to, then we lose the
> ability to fix those bugs.  Down that path lies Windows^Wmadness.

The madness comes from unpredictable behavior implementing some  
murky, incompletely defined concept. "Slotting" is exactly such a  
concept. Rather than descend into the murk, it is better to keep the  
mechanism simple.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




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