On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:43:08AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > Hierarchy isn't the only reuse scenario. Consider transition from > > breadboard to prototype to production. A top-level schematic might > > not change, even though attributes of parts might change (different > > packages, tighter specs, ...). In that case, the instance-specific > > data can't be in *any* schematic. > > Up to now, we've been using the schematic as the "master" files for > the design. Perhaps this is a bad idiom? Perhaps "the design" should > be some other data, which uses the schematic as but one of its inputs? >
Maybe in the backend it is a bad idiom (that is, gschem should be saving the schematic and "design" as separate beasts, maybe in a gzipped collection or something). But from the user's perspective it makes sense. When you first set out to design a circuit, you start by scribbling out a block-level schematic, then fleshing it out into a "real" schematic, long before you care about specific parts or footprints or decoupling caps. Probably these high-level schematics would be scribbled on the back of an envelope or on a whiteboard rather than in gschem, but I think it reflects a "schematic-oriented" view of the circuit for most people. Plus, simulations and ratsnests depend on the schematic data, so it is a sensible base for design work. -- Andrew Poelstra Email: asp11 at sfu.ca OR apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew/ _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user