Peter Clifton <pc...@cam.ac.uk> writes: > On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 16:05 +0900, John Doty wrote: > >> Note that there's a bit of terminology confusion. gschem actually >> manipulates segments of nets (other tools sometimes call these >> "wires"), while "net" in EE theory is usually a topological whole, >> where the connection is assumed to be structureless. > > wires is a useful distinction here, although it sounds like it implies > something physical. I'll try to call them "net segments" from now on. > > Sometimes a gnetlist backend might wish to request the connectivity of a > net (the topological whole). IMO libgeda should be able to provide that. > (A library or convenience function if you will).
It does not happen very often, but in this point my opinion disagrees with John's, I think. The whole point of libgeda and gnetlist is to express connectivity between pins. Machine-interpreting meaning into the details of the individual net segments is a confusing concept, that should not be encouraged by the tools. If such things need to be expressed, I'd introduce a new type of symbol, and teach the gnetlist backend that needs those semantics to treat both/all connections to that symbol as the same net, but with different attributes. -- Stephan _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
