Re: gEDA-user: Hierarchy viewer and database proposal

[Ales Hvezda <ahvezda@seul.org>]

Hi Carlos,

[snip]
>There was one thing pending: the DRC checker wants all parts in the
>schematic always having "slot" and "numslots" defined so it could check
>for this. There was no decission about this since then. Ales, do you
>remember that?

	Yes, I do and I have been thinking about this on and off for
the past few weeks.  After reading all the responses to this thread,
I think this posting from John Doty pretty much sums up my view of
the whole numslots and slots argument:

John Doty wrote:
>I don't think numslots should be promoted: it's a property of the symbol,
>not the instance.
>
>Non-slotted parts should not have attached slot attributes, as it just
>contributes to the clutter.

Agreed.

numslots should not be promoted.  On symbols that do not have slots,
numslots should either be explicitly set to 0 (numslots=0) or if numbslots
is not present, then it should be assumed the component does not have slots
(and trying to set the slot on such a component should fail).

slot should only be present when a component has slots.  If the component
has multiple slots, then slot=1 should be inside the symbol, if it is not,
it is assumed slot=1.

I do understand that your drc issues warnings when numslots or slot are
missing.  What will it take to make your DRC happy with the above statements
being true?  Please refresh my memory.  Thank you.

								-Ales