Hello,
My python front-end project for a circuit simulator is not dead, but the
time missed me during the past few months.
It was not so urgent (until now :-)) and I continue looking at gnucap
sources, ngspice sources to know the best candidate for the front-end.
In a precedent thread (may 2006) , I precised that this stuff was for my
job but it seems today it's not incompatible with a contribution to the
gEDA project.
The following reasonnings continue the thread of may 2006.
Gnucap is more flexible than ngspice at source level and compilation
level. Releases come out regularly. Compilation is easy on linux and
windows. Good points.
However, its seems that the CS class is in the heart of gnucap. In
general methods take a (CS &cmd) input parameter. So the own gnucap
script language is deep rooted in code.
The consequence is that a front-end will simply build itself the "cmd"
instance corresponding to the context of a class circuit instance, then
call the CMD::cmdproc(cmd) the most of the time.
(A python circuit class instance will be a Gnucap subckt.
The circuit class will implement the gnucap "build" capability.
One iteration of simulation at a time.
Each iteration will return the probed values.)
I will precise the functionnal features later.
I thought I would call directly the gnucap methods under the following
form "transient(start=0, end=12e6, step=0.5e-6)" for instance and not
"transient(cmd)".
I don't know if it's better.
Is my understanding of Gnucap mechanisms good ?
Thanks,
Cyril.
_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
