On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Stephan Boettcher wrote: > > al davis <ad...@freeelectron.net> writes: > >> How about prefixing simulation attributes with a dot. > > No, please, use a proper namespace prefix, like > > spice- verilog- sim- > spice: verilog: sim: > > Backend namespaces, use namespaces, with fallbacks into legacy and > global namespaces. > > spice-value= > sim-value= > value=
Agreed. In most cases, the user is going to want attributes like value= to be common to all flows. It would be good, though, to create a common convention for units in this case. I'm unhappy with tuning gschem/gnetlist to be especially friendly to any specific downstream flow. Al's favorite downstream tool is apparently Verilog, so that seems to be what he wants to target, with every other flow having to adapt. While it is good to have completely generic symbols as a goal, in practice users will need escape hatches to allow more control. So, for example, it is important to have the possibility of SPICE-specific attributes for cases where the SPICE netlister's assumptions turn out to be wrong. Given SPICE's irregularity and multiple incompatible dialects, this is inevitable. --- John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. This message contains technical discussion involving difficult issues. No personal disrespect or malice is intended. If you perceive such, your perception is simply wrong. I'm a busy person, and in my business "go along to get along" causes mission failures and sometimes kills people, so I tend to be a bit blunt. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
