Re: gEDA-user: newbie, couple of Q's about gschem

["John Luciani" <jluciani@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/16/07, Chris Albertson <albertson.chris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Postscript is just so much better for defining symbols.  Postscript is
> a true "programming language".  It features like loops and branching and
> high end math (matrix multiply)

Postcript graphics commands would be nice but they are not necessary to
achieve "publication quality" schematic symbols. The addition of a
filled polygon
element would be make it a lot easier.

With filled polygons and an updated library gschem schematics could
be publication quality.

> Much depends on your critiera for "quality".  For example many people
> are happy with the typesetting abilities of basic work processors like
> Microsoft Word.  But if you compare side by side to Don, Knuth's "tex"
> there are differences.

I *only* use TeX/LaTeX/ConTeXt. For publication quality schematic examples ---
"The Art of Electronics" is good. "Lessons in Electronic Circuits" is good.

Other than the filled polygons are there other graphics primitives
that are missing
that would be required to get "publication quality" schematics?

(* jcl *)

-- 
http://www.luciani.org


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