On Wednesday 06 June 2007 17:20, Peter Clifton wrote: > Adding a special attribute to be used in symbols which > means "go read this scheme code". (Or alternatively, "here is > some scheme code").
What is the benefit? > I believe this will be handy for allowing custom attribute > helpers for different classes of symbol, without having to > add everything in scheme files shipped with gschem. > For example, a resistor symbol might include "resistor.scm" > (which is then found somewhere in a particular search path), > and this scheme code could provide the helper functions for > filling in the attributes. How about adding a list of legal attributes with range? Make this a general feature that is available to all symbols. Actually, even this leads to problems. You might want to use a different technology than the symbol maker intended. As an example, with discretes, capacitors typically are in picofarads or bigger. On an IC, capacitors are typically in femtofarads. > Alternatively - you might see this as useful, adding in a > gnucap directive symbol might set a variable which allows the > various helper functions to show more simulation specific > options. > > We'd obviously need to make that setting go away again if you > removed the gnucap directive. The schematic should not have anything that is simulator specific. In particular, I really object to embedding simulator commands in the schematic. Even the single attribute "value" where you put the simulator's text for the value, is too simulator specific. If you must put something that indicates things like "transient analysis", have symbols like oscilloscope, DC voltmeter, ammeter, etc. Then let the netlister decide how to convert to simulator commands. These symbols are primarily for beginning users, who might be making the transition from something like Multi-sim. I always either run the simulator interactively, or do multiple runs in a script. Having a box in the schematic where you put simulator commands really only gets in the way. Also, often I change the circuit through the simulator based on the results. One feature I would really like is a way to back-annotate those changes, a way to update the schematic other than manually changing the values. _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
