On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:41:23PM +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> pin[pinnumber=1] {pinnumber="2";}
> pin[pinnumber=2] {pinnumber="1";}
>
>
> I've long seen this to be the most sane way of managing back-annotation
> into a hierarchy. I would go as far to say refdes should be
> back-annotated as such:
>
> #X1 > #X1 > #R1 {refdes = "R99";}
> #X1 > #X2 > #R1 {refdes = "R123";}
> #X1 > #X3 > #R1 {refdes = "R3";}
That looks neat & powerful - and starting to closely resemble XPath/XSLT/CSS
transformations.
But I think we're actually getting farther from something that:
* is backwards compatible with the name=value attribute definition/syntx
* can be simply used to add hierarchy/depth to attribute assignments
It would be best to keep these two things aligned - syntax used for
general transformations should be a natural extension of the one used
for attribute definitions.
And a small comment regarding hierarchy separators - I would personally
choose anything that does not require shift-keystroke to type the most
commonly used separator - so '/' and '.' seem to be the two natural
candidates.
--
Krzysztof Kościuszkiewicz
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" -- Leonardo da Vinci
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
