On Dec 5, 2009, at 10:09 AM, John Doty wrote:
On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:
On Nov 22, 2009, at 8:41 AM, John Doty wrote:
On Nov 20, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:
On Nov 20, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Stuart Brorson wrote:
As an alternative
On Dec 4, 2009, at 12:38 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:
On Nov 22, 2009, at 8:41 AM, John Doty wrote:
On Nov 20, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:
On Nov 20, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Stuart Brorson wrote:
As an alternative to scheme, some would prefer to see TCL. I have
no
problem
John Doty wrote:
Delivery-date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:47:46 -0400
It would be good to have the above script
as part of the gEDA installation (since the installation script
knows). Ales, would you like for me to put the GPL boilerplate on
this and submit it to you, along
On Dec 5, 2009, at 11:26 AM, John Griessen wrote:
John Doty wrote:
Delivery-date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:47:46 -0400
It would be good to have the above script
as part of the gEDA installation (since the installation script
knows). Ales, would you like for me to
On Nov 22, 2009, at 8:41 AM, John Doty wrote:
On Nov 20, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:
On Nov 20, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Stuart Brorson wrote:
As an alternative to scheme, some would prefer to see TCL. I have
no
problem with that, as long as the interpreter is built-in.
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:37 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
The issue which is somewhat tricky is how to place the numbers -
assuming they didn't exist in the symbol to start with. We'd have to get
our auto-placement heuristics out,
I, for one, wouldn't care. Autoplacement has caused me a bit of
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 21:06 +, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:03:31 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
Why not change the workflow so that during schematic capture, there are
no pin numbers anywhere? Pins on symbols get assigned a physical pin
number during some some later
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:16:23 +0900, Andrzej ndrwr...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
See this old diagram Peter B and I drew:
http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:data_structure_design_discussion?s=data%
20structure
That looks perfect
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:22:41PM +, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:32:08 +0100, Stefan Salewski wrote:
Scheme is one of the simplest programming languages there is.
It's simplicity is much like the game of go -- Just four short rules need
to be obeyed. Yet, the
Guys:
I'd like to apologize on the record for this whole thread.
It was a very simple question, after all. I had no idea. :)
b.g.
--
Bill Gatliff
b...@billgatliff.com
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:56 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Guys:
I'd like to apologize on the record for this whole thread.
No need to apologize. You brought a bunch of critical issues out into
the daylight.
It was a very simple question, after all. I had no idea. :)
Ah, but you showed that
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:03:31 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
Why not change the workflow so that during schematic capture, there are
no pin numbers anywhere? Pins on symbols get assigned a physical pin
number during some some later step, at the same time that footprints
are selected. And then a
On Nov 20, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Steven Michalske wrote:
On Nov 20, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Stuart Brorson wrote:
As an alternative to scheme, some would prefer to see TCL. I have no
problem with that, as long as the interpreter is built-in. However,
there is a large installed base of scheme, so
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 09:41 -0700, John Doty wrote:
But what is it about engineers that I hear constantly I don't want
to learn... from them? So unprofessional. For something complex and
obfuscated, the time factor comes in, but Scheme is one of the
simplest programming languages
Bill Gatliff b...@billgatliff.com writes:
Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Remotely related to this topic, I had this idea:
Often, there are several choices for footprint, model, whatever
attribute that need to to chosen at some point in the flow. We have
proposals
for a kind of database to
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:33:54 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Keeping the data primitives separated until the last minute would make
external scripting easier and more consistent,
The downside is, it would make communication with peers more difficult.
Currently, I can pass heavy symbols and the
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:32:08 +0100, Stefan Salewski wrote:
Scheme is one of the simplest programming languages there is.
It's simplicity is much like the game of go -- Just four short rules need
to be obeyed. Yet, the actual game is so complex that computers have yet
to consistently beat top
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:25:43 +, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
The downside is, it would make communication with peers more difficult.
Just wanted to add, that I have been cursed eagle more than once for the
obstacles they put into peer-to-peer communication. With eagle you can
easily share a
On Nov 22, 2009, at 3:22 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
However, extreme flexibility comes at a price. The price is non-
intuitive
syntax
Every syntax is non-intuitive to somebody. The advantage of Scheme is
that it's so clean and simple you don't need much intuition. These
days you don't
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
See this old diagram Peter B and I drew:
http://geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:data_structure_design_discussion?s=data%
20structure
That looks perfect to me. In fact it is almost identical to what I use
in pschem. Is there any
Hand.
But I think Stuart was referring to the 400k of Scheme code that
ships with gEDA.
On Nov 20, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Could we get a show of hands as to who is doing a significant
quantity of scheme programming in their use of gEDA? Stuff that might
get broken of
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:51:49 -0700, John Doty j...@noqsi.com wrote:
The bottom line question for the core developers is:
What prevents us from writing a file of Guile functions and adding a
line to gafrc to load it and get this functionality?
The gschem/libgeda Scheme API:
- Is completely
Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:51:49 -0700, John Doty j...@noqsi.com wrote:
The bottom line question for the core developers is:
What prevents us from writing a file of Guile functions and adding a
line to gafrc to load it and get this functionality?
The gschem/libgeda
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Dan McMahill [1]...@mcmahill.net
wrote:
Michael Sokolov wrote:
Bill Gatliff [2]b...@billgatliff.com wrote:
Now I'm beginning to see the problems with slotting and symbols the
way
we're doing them now: they unnecessarily tie the concept
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:19:41 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
The attributes may be names like
footprint-option=0603
footprint-option=0805
or
footprint-options=0603;0805
Welcome to the club! ;^)
That makes (at least) three of us users who propose to add lists of
default
Greg Cunningham wrote:
What would be nice here is a loose coupling between symbol and device to
the extent that symbols could be dynamically assigned to devices. Maybe
there could be a 'devices' panel (maybe even the assigned list from the
library). Each device in the panel exposes its used
Dan McMahill wrote:
and this is exactly why the small library I have defines the component
in a simple ascii database and then awk reads that data and combines a
symbol template with a footprint and produces a .sym file that has the
footprint set along with the pin out. Wouldn't be too
Peter TB Brett wrote:
The gschem/libgeda Scheme API:
- Is completely inconsistent in naming and calling pattern.
- Has no useful documentation.
- Lacks the ability to do meaningful manipulation of schematics/symbols.
- Fails dismally at coping with having multiple schematics/symbols open
Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Remotely related to this topic, I had this idea:
Often, there are several choices for footprint, model, whatever
attribute that need to to chosen at some point in the flow. We have proposals
for a kind of database to support the options.
I envision a directory
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 17:34 -0700, John Doty wrote:
On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
The code which refreshes the pin-numbers when you change these
unusually
attached attributes is broken (missing) in git HEAD. Various special
case checks for slot= exist, but none of
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 10:19 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Remotely related to this topic, I had this idea:
Often, there are several choices for footprint, model, whatever
attribute that need to to chosen at some point in the flow. We have proposals
for a kind of database to support the
Would it make any sense to attempt to use Dia as an alternative gschem?
Obviously, there would need to be a lot of shape and script development,
but it sure looks like the basic machinery that we need from gschem is
there already. And as a bonus, Dia uses Python as its backend scripting
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 13:18 +, Kelvin Gardiner wrote:
On a bit of a different note. It would be nice to search gedasymols.org
directly form the library manager for additional symbols / components.
Been done... see:
http://www.tablix.org/~avian/geda/gedasymbolsui/
Would it make any sense to attempt to use Dia as an alternative gschem?
Sorry to come out of hibernation just to rant.
I've used dia many times over the years. It stinks to high heaven. It's
user interface is clunky, its rendering is horrible, and its text
handling is a disaster. Its been
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:15:19 -0500, Stuart Brorson wrote:
Its been frozen at version 0.99 for years
You mean, like a certain layout tool? :-P
(SCNR)
---(kaimartin)---
--
Kai-Martin Knaak
Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x6C0B9F53
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:15:19 -0500, Stuart Brorson wrote:
Its been frozen at version 0.99 for years
You mean, like a certain layout tool? :-P
*chuckle* Yeah, but the difference is that PCB has been improving
with every snapshot (i.e. unofficial
There are a lot of ideas going around here and most of them sound like
good features. I'm a long time but casual user of geda and I don't want
to step on the toes of those who use it more or actively develop the
tools. I'd just like like to interject one thing.
I think it's important to pay
On Nov 20, 2009, at 7:09 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 17:34 -0700, John Doty wrote:
On Nov 19, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
The code which refreshes the pin-numbers when you change these
unusually
attached attributes is broken (missing) in git HEAD. Various
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 08:24 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Would it make any sense to attempt to use Dia as an alternative gschem?
I had this strange idea in my head too, about one year ago I think...
I think it was the time when John Luciani created a few fancy filled
symbols for publications.
Stuart Brorson wrote:
Would it make any sense to attempt to use Dia as an alternative gschem?
Sorry to come out of hibernation just to rant.
I've used dia many times over the years. It stinks to high heaven.
Ok, I'll put you down as not in favor of Dia. :)
I fired up Dia for the
On Nov 20, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Stuart Brorson wrote:
As an alternative to scheme, some would prefer to see TCL. I have no
problem with that, as long as the interpreter is built-in. However,
there is a large installed base of scheme, so it's likely we're stuck
with it.
I propose that the
On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 20:53 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:57 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
I think I'd prefer flexible mechanism instead of multiple mechanism
doing almost the same.
Fine, condemn us to the status
On Nov 19, 2009, at 3:00 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
John Doty j...@noqsi.com wrote:
A powerful component of an electronic design *automation* process.
Not the usual fritterware tool that forces you to tell it what to do,
repeatedly, by manual operation. Do graphics with GUI, do flow with
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 01:23 +, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:17:02 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
It is a perfect example of why gEDA can never grow more friendly
interfaces to these problems. _Because_ the existing interface can be
abused - and people think it is a good
On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:33 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:21:10 -0700, John Doty j...@noqsi.com wrote:
I hold that a slot is related to a multiplicity of identical units
within the chip, and the slotting mechanism was _not_ intended as an
arbitrary way of fudging different
On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:18 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
If they fitted a dooms-day device controller on the spare die-space of
the chip.. that again, could be a separate symbol.
May I remind you your under a NDA!
___
geda-user mailing list
On Nov 19, 2009, at 9:38 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Peter Clifton wrote:
Lets say I have a symbol:
---|\
---|/
That might have 4 slots - IE.. I expect 4 of those nand gates in the
chip.
... and I think that might be where the problem suddenly creeps in.
The
Bill Gatliff wrote:
Now I'm beginning to see the problems with slotting and symbols the way
we're doing them now: they unnecessarily tie the concept of a symbol to
the concept of a component, because the pin numbers that we currently
record in our symbols are also the pin numbers that the
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 10:38 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Now I'm beginning to see the problems with slotting and symbols the way
we're doing them now: they unnecessarily tie the concept of a symbol to
the concept of a component, because the pin numbers that we currently
record in our symbols
If they fitted a dooms-day device controller on the spare die-space of
May I remind you your under a NDA!
No Doomsday Agreement?
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
I've been using gEDA for a while, and have been following this thread
closely. There have been a lot of good arguments from all sides for
how things should work. I'm wondering if we should take a more
pragmatic way of looking at things. There are a few options:
a) keep the
Bill Gatliff b...@billgatliff.com wrote:
Now I'm beginning to see the problems with slotting and symbols the way
we're doing them now: they unnecessarily tie the concept of a symbol to
the concept of a component, because the pin numbers that we currently
record in our symbols are also the pin
Bill Gatliff wrote:
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
The two other EDA suites I worked (eagle and protel) with maintain the
notion of a component that contains all the info. In a way, this is a
very heavy symbol that knows about slots, possible footprints and which
schematic symbols are
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:38 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
The two other EDA suites I worked (eagle and protel) with maintain the
notion of a component that contains all the info. In a way, this is a
very heavy symbol that knows about slots, possible footprints and
Henry Von Bank wrote:
What I would propose would be to leave the slotting behavior alone for
the time being (option a), but hopefully mark it for deprecation in
some future version, as it can be confusing and is not well defined.
We could actually leave it alone almost
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 17:10 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
What you want is a four-slot-slotted gate symbol, and a separate power
symbol. The slots permute across {gate 1, gate2} x {A-B inputs, B-A
inputs}. I.e. you can use the slotting to switch gates *or*
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 23:34 +, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:35:08 +0100, Stefan Salewski wrote:
I generate a bug with slotting, see
http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Apr-2009/msg00189.html
Ouups.
I only did not get bitten by this trap, because my pinseq
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 17:19 -0700, John Doty wrote:
Another problem is that it doesn't play well with hierarchy. Suppose
you need a bunch of the same circuit, but one of the building blocks
comes in pairs, and another comes in duals. That forces you to draw
six of the circuit per block.
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 09:23 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 17:10 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
What you want is a four-slot-slotted gate symbol, and a separate power
symbol. The slots permute across {gate 1, gate2} x {A-B inputs,
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:57 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
This thread reminds me again to my something useless post some days ago:
http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Nov-2009/msg00310.html
When I design electronics, there may be an initial phase where
Stephan Boettcher wrote:
I'd not call that abuse. The current sloting mechanism allows to change
pin numpers on a drawn component to switch to a different instance of the
component inside the same package.
We also call for changing pin numbers when we replace one package type
with another.
On Nov 18, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Not sure if this question is related, but...
Why not change the workflow so that during schematic capture, there
are
no pin numbers anywhere? Pins on symbols get assigned a physical
pin
number during some some later step, at the same
On Nov 18, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Stephan Boettcher wrote:
I'd not call that abuse. The current sloting mechanism allows to
change
pin numpers on a drawn component to switch to a different instance
of the
component inside the same package.
We also call for changing
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 10:56 -0700, John Doty wrote:
On Nov 18, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
So I think what you're saying is that you like the idea of a tool
that converts (hierarchical .sch)-(flat .sch).
That can't work if there isn't some extra information input somewhere.
On
Steven Michalske wrote:
Your suggestion sounds like an implementation I would call a logical
hierarchy
( A hierarchy could be one level deep, and flat in the first place. )
workflow
logical hierarchy ---implement--- physical hierarchy ---flatten?---
physical flat design.
Then the
John Doty wrote:
Let's not say change the workflow. There are many workflows. Pin
numbers and packages are already irrelevant to some.
Well, let's say change MY workflow. :)
Have a tool that translates schematics without pin numbers to
schematics with them.
Actually, I kind of
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:57 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
It is a perfect example of why gEDA can never grow more friendly
interfaces to these problems. _Because_ the existing interface can be
abused - and people think it is a good idea to encourage
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 12:54 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Why not change the workflow so that during schematic capture, there are
no pin numbers anywhere? Pins on symbols get assigned a physical pin
number during some some later step, at the same time that footprints are
selected. And then a
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 14:31 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Steven Michalske wrote:
* a schematic symbol represents some or all of a component
* a component might satisfy the functionality indicated by more than
one symbol
* a component comes in one or more footprints
You're clearly thinking of
On Nov 18, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 10:56 -0700, John Doty wrote:
On Nov 18, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
So I think what you're saying is that you like the idea of a tool
that converts (hierarchical .sch)-(flat .sch).
That can't work if there
Bill Gatliff wrote:
* a schematic symbol represents some or all of a component
* a component might satisfy the functionality indicated by more than
one symbol
* a component comes in one or more footprints
* footprints are used by more than one component
* schematic hierarchy symbols are just
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 20:53 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:57 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
I think I'd prefer flexible mechanism instead of multiple mechanism
doing almost the same.
Fine, condemn us to the status quo - where gEDA has no ability to
identify
Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 14:31 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
Steven Michalske wrote:
* a schematic symbol represents some or all of a component
* a component might satisfy the functionality indicated by more than
one symbol
* a component comes in one or more
On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:06 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
What really pains me - is that development has pretty much stagnated -
because we can't seem to get _anything_ new into the suite to help
provide basic functionality other packages take for granted.
Nobody *ever* objects to adding another
On Nov 18, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Peter Clifton wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 18:57 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
Peter Clifton pc...@cam.ac.uk writes:
It is a perfect example of why gEDA can never grow more friendly
interfaces to these problems. _Because_ the existing interface
can be
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:17:02 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
It is a perfect example of why gEDA can never grow more friendly
interfaces to these problems. _Because_ the existing interface can be
abused - and people think it is a good idea to encourage such
flexibility, we end up with designs out
John Doty j...@noqsi.com wrote:
A powerful component of an electronic design *automation* process.
Not the usual fritterware tool that forces you to tell it what to do,
repeatedly, by manual operation. Do graphics with GUI, do flow with
scripts. High productivity rather than cute a
Guys:
I can get TI's LittleLogic NAND gates in single (SN74LVC1G00) and dual
(SN74LVC2G00) varieties. At the schematic level, however, I'd prefer to
just have a NAND symbol and a separate symbol for the power pins.
One way to solve this problem is to have a symbol named sn74lvc1g00.sym
for the
What you want is a four-slot-slotted gate symbol, and a separate power
symbol. The slots permute across {gate 1, gate2} x {A-B inputs, B-A
inputs}. I.e. you can use the slotting to switch gates *or* swap the
pins. It's worth the effort to get this working smoothly.
My approach would be to use a NAND symbol, a power symbol, and slotting.
I'm curious as to why you found slotting problematic? It's no more or
less obtuse than the rest of gschem.
-dave
Bill Gatliff wrote:
Guys:
I can get TI's LittleLogic NAND gates in single (SN74LVC1G00) and dual
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 14:17 -0800, Dave N6NZ wrote:
I'm curious as to why you found slotting problematic? It's no more or
less obtuse than the rest of gschem.
-dave
I generate a bug with slotting, see
http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/Apr-2009/msg00189.html
Of course this does not
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 17:10 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
What you want is a four-slot-slotted gate symbol, and a separate power
symbol. The slots permute across {gate 1, gate2} x {A-B inputs, B-A
inputs}. I.e. you can use the slotting to switch gates *or* swap the
pins. It's worth the effort
On Nov 17, 2009, at 3:17 PM, Dave N6NZ wrote:
I'm curious as to why you found slotting problematic? It's no more or
less obtuse than the rest of gschem.
It's much more troublesome. Every attribute that is given special
treatment by libgeda or the gnetlist front end is associated with a
83 matches
Mail list logo
