Re: gEDA-user: [PCB-Patches] Action-documentation

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 13, 2010, at 8:55 PM, kai-martin knaak wrote:

> DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
>>> PS: (*) Would a general switch of "element" to "footprint" receive a
>>> warm welcome by the developers? This would provide more consistency 
>>> between geda and pcb wording.
>> 
>> element
>       (...)  
> 
>> footprint
>       (...)
> 
> I'll take this as a "no".
> 
> 
>> I think this is consistent with gschem; a symbol in your schematic
>> specifies the footprint it needs when it becomes an element on your
>> board.

No. A symbol in gschem is not necessarily "elementary". It can encapsulate circuitry that itself is represented by more symbols, which encapsulate circuitry represented by more symbols...

The user of gschem/gnetlist gets to decide where this process bottoms out. You can do full hierarchy, Paul Tan style, or you can plow down to genuinely elementary devices: R, C, Q, etc. This is a major part of gEDA's flexibility and scalability.

But "elements" in pcb are *not* elementary.

> 
> It may be consistent. However, it is confusing to newbies, at least 
> the ones I have been in touch with. IMHO, there is no need to use
> different words for types of land patterns and their instantiations.

Yes. A well-factored design would draw no such distinction. In a well-factored design, one would build up geometry starting with genuinely elementary objects, and compose more elaborate geometry from those elements and/or other composites. 

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