On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 10:19 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote: > > Remotely related to this topic, I had this idea: > > Often, there are several choices for footprint, model, whatever > attribute that need to to chosen at some point in the flow. We have proposals > for a kind of database to support the options. > > For a lot of simple applications/flows, an extra database may be > overkill, so why not put the database into attributes of the symbols in > a library. The attributes may be names like > > footprint-option=0603 > footprint-option=0805 > > or > > footprint-options=0603;0805 > > or both. The gattrib and gschem GUIs can provide support by looking for > these attributes and offer menus to select from the list of choices when > modifying attributes. > > It may be possible to provide a sloting mechanism like this as well. Or > add gui support for the existing slotting mechanism, or to abuse the > existing sloting mechanism, like this: > > numslots=1 > slotdef=1:1,2,3 > slotdef-opti...@big:1:1,2,3 > slotdef-opti...@small:1:3,2,1 > footprint=TO220 > footprint-opti...@big:TO220 > footptint-opti...@small:SO223 > > No new policy imposed, no file-format changes, no gnetlist changes, just > some new functions in the GUIs, for those who like to create/use a > library/database of (heavy) symbols.
I disagree that it doesn't impose new policy though. Perhaps it doesn't "impose" it if it is in a module, but it does define semantic meaning to a number of attributes. It is the kind of proposal we need to be discussing. I'm not sure this particular proposal is good / bad (probably aspects of both). Do those rules sit in the core of libgeda, and apply to every symbol ever loaded, for any work-flow, or does it need to sit in a separate and optional module (probably shipped switched on). Best wishes, Peter C. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user