I prefer:
# -*- makefile -*-
CSA-L%.sch: CSA-1.sch Makefile
sed 's,^\(refdes\|netname\)=,L$*_,' $ $@
CSA-N%.sch: CSA-2.sch Makefile
sed 's,^\(refdes\|netname\)=,N$*_,' $ $@
FSH-S%.sch: FSH-1.sch Makefile
sed 's,^\(refdes\|netname\)=,S$*_,' $ $@
Steven Michalske smichal...@gmail.com writes:
Now we may want to write a parser, and emitter, but that is a good
amount of work, to serialize a data structure in the code that could
be output be a data serializer that just works.
The emitter shall conserve order and formatting (probably not)
Hello,
This patch place the scrollbars and the drawing area in a table, this prevents
that the scrollbars doesn't intersect in the bottom right corner.
--
Kam
diff --git a/gschem/include/prototype.h b/gschem/include/prototype.h
index 5948c74..c0fc760 100644
--- a/gschem/include/prototype.h
+++
On 09/13/2010 09:57 PM, Ouabache Designworks wrote:
pin:
pinNumber: 2
pinName: rst
x1: 1234
y1: 4321
x2: 2345
y2: 4321
layer: component
or
pinpinNumber2/pinNumberpinNamerst\pinNamex11234\x1y
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 04:25:49PM -0700, Steven Michalske wrote:
pin:
pinNumber: 2
pinName: rst
x1: 1234
y1: 4321
x2: 2345
y2: 4321
layer: component
or
pinpinNumber2/pinNumberpinNamerst\pinNamex11234\x1y14321\y1x22345\x2y25432\y2layercomponent\layer\pin
I would point
Phil Frost ind...@bitglue.com writes:
I would point out a valid YAML representation of the above is also:
{pin: {pinNumber: 2, pinName: rst, x1: 1234, y1: 4321, x2: 2345, y2: 4321,
layer: component}}
Neither sed nor awk can process XML or YAML the right way in all cases
without
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:20:52PM -0400, Matthew Sager wrote:
[*] We need a better term for drawing layers, since layer means
something specific in PCB design. Or another name for physical
layers. Or something ;-)
How about overlay?
Canvas comes to mind. It
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:26:28AM -0400, Joshua Boyd wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 09:08:25PM -0700, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
XML is far too heavy, agreed, and it's signal-to-noise ratio is abysmal.
I think that using a Lisp (or Lispy-looking) format would be extensible,
easy to parse, and
On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:20:52PM -0400, Matthew Sager wrote:
[*] We need a better term for drawing layers, since layer means
something specific in PCB design. Or another name for physical
layers. Or something ;-)
How about
I like canvas - it's a more popular idiom than cel.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
I like canvas - it's a more popular idiom than cel.
Indeed it is.
My concern about canvas is that it does not convey a relationship to our
physical layers. In some cases it would be reasonable to expect a canvas
to refer a full layer or even to a stack of layers. IMHO, it would be
beneficial
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 02:57:31PM -0400, Windell H. Oskay wrote:
I like canvas - it's a more popular idiom than cel.
Indeed it is.
My concern about canvas is that it does not convey a relationship to our
physical layers. In some cases it would be reasonable to expect a canvas
to refer
Hi all
I resolved this issue (given enough time even a monkey can solve his
problems!). I'm posting just for future reference.
I was using
(hierarchy-uref-separator _)
instead of
(hierarchy-uref-separator /)
The separator appears to be important even if it is disabled by
On 12.09.2010 00:20, Peter Clifton wrote:
(Can someone who uses / has used keepouts on another package describe
for me how they work, or how you use them?)
(In our company we are using a 5 year old package that has support for
keepouts. It has pre-defined one keepout layer where the user can
Mike Crowe wrote:
I resolved this issue (given enough time even a monkey can solve his
problems!). I'm posting just for future reference.
Did you post a big report?
The separator appears to be important even if it is disabled by
(hierarchy-uref-mangle disabled)
Ouch. Magic characters
On 09/13/2010 05:07 PM, John Doty wrote:
On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:27 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
So let me rephrase: Why have seven geometric holes,
one for each layer, when we can have one geometric hole applied to the whole
composite?
snip
My notion is that you need a general mechanism to align
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:34:23PM -0500, John Griessen wrote:
On 09/13/2010 05:07 PM, John Doty wrote:
On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:27 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
So let me rephrase: Why have seven geometric holes,
one for each layer, when we can have one geometric hole applied to the
whole
17 matches
Mail list logo
