al davis ad...@freeelectron.net writes:
How about prefixing simulation attributes with a dot.
No, please, use a proper namespace prefix, like
spice- verilog- sim-
spice: verilog: sim:
Backend namespaces, use namespaces, with fallbacks into legacy and
global namespaces.
spice-value=
On Monday 17 January 2011 08:01:53 ge...@igor2.repo.hu wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 08:22:02AM +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
ge...@igor2.repo.hu writes:
If you edit one object, that won't ever move other objects around
by side effect. VCS systems I know depend on this feature. I
On Monday 17 January 2011 02:07:32 Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Hi.
The print dialog of gschem offers Extents with margins by default.
This margin is larger than necessary or my printer. But no margin is
too little. Is there a way to set the size of the margin? I couldn't
find margin in
On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
al davis ad...@freeelectron.net writes:
How about prefixing simulation attributes with a dot.
No, please, use a proper namespace prefix, like
spice- verilog- sim-
spice: verilog: sim:
Backend namespaces, use namespaces,
On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
Due to the way the gschem editing model works, and particularly the undo
system, stuff tends to get shifted to the end of the file when edited.
This is something that I've made a few improvements to in the past, but
fundamentally the
On Monday 17 Jan 2011 08:58:18 John Doty wrote:
On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
Due to the way the gschem editing model works, and particularly the undo
system, stuff tends to get shifted to the end of the file when edited.
This is something that I've made a few
Peter TB Brett wrote:
Unfortunately, your current best bet is to export with no margins and
then use a tool which can talk CUPS to shrink to the correct printer
extents.
I filed a feature request on launchpad.
---)kaimartin(---
--
Kai-Martin Knaak
Email: k...@familieknaak.de
Öffentlicher
On Jan 17, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Monday 17 Jan 2011 08:58:18 John Doty wrote:
On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
Due to the way the gschem editing model works, and particularly the undo
system, stuff tends to get shifted to the end of the file when
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:26:58AM +, Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Monday 17 Jan 2011 08:58:18 John Doty wrote:
On Jan 17, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
Due to the way the gschem editing model works, and particularly the undo
system, stuff tends to get shifted to the end of the
John Doty:
On Jan 17, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Monday 17 Jan 2011 08:58:18 John Doty wrote:
...
At each level in this tree the order of the branches does not matter.
No. It does matter; the ordering indicates the draw order of primitives in
any
viewer or graphics
Tibor:
...
Maybe I oversimplify it, but I still suggesting having UUIDs. Long
random numbers, like 256 bits, stored in hex. Whenever a new object
appears, generate a new one. Whenever an object is transformed, keep the
UUID. When saving, order objects numerically by UUID (within each level,
On Monday 17 Jan 2011 11:07:16 John Doty wrote:
At each level in this tree the order of the branches does not matter.
No. It does matter; the ordering indicates the draw order of primitives
in any viewer or graphics exporter. Arguably, it shouldn't, but if not,
the file format needs to
On Monday 17 Jan 2011 12:17:50 Karl Hammar wrote:
Tibor:
...
Maybe I oversimplify it, but I still suggesting having UUIDs. Long
random numbers, like 256 bits, stored in hex. Whenever a new object
appears, generate a new one. Whenever an object is transformed, keep the
UUID. When saving,
John, Stephan, Rick, Tibor,
many thanks for your insights. I'm convinced there _has_ to be some
sort of leadership when different, but technological equal design
solutions appear.
Am 16.01.2011 um 22:37 schrieb Rick:
To be honest, I was a little turned off when I tried to read your
On Sat, 2011-01-15 at 01:42 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Peter Clifton wrote:
It is intended that these will be published in Altium format as that
is the CAD package of choice for the design process.
Why not geda in the first place?
I've mentioned some reasons in other emails - I'll
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 08:11 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
I'm lost.. who is Bob?
You do not use a thread view in your mail reader, do you?
Not normally, no.. and switching it on did clear things up.
It looks like I completely missed Bob's email in the thread. I know who
Bob Paddock is,
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 11:32 -0600, John Griessen wrote:
On 01/15/2011 06:32 AM, Bob Paddock wrote:
git HEAD rendering speed alone
would make it prohibitive.
I've been able to layout dense boards. The autorouter for digital wires after
the main power is laid out doesn't need
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 13:50 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
As you mentioned one of the differences is the inspection of changes,
but there's another one. Track positions are more like the
programmer's object data, than like source code. So they can change
often, and often without the
On Monday 17 January 2011, John Doty wrote:
I'm unhappy with tuning gschem/gnetlist to be especially
friendly to any specific downstream flow. Al's favorite
downstream tool is apparently Verilog, so that seems to be
what he wants to target, with every other flow having to
adapt.
I'm unhappy
On Monday 17 January 2011, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
al davis ad...@freeelectron.net writes:
How about prefixing simulation attributes with a dot.
No, please, use a proper namespace prefix, like
spice- verilog- sim-
spice: verilog: sim:
Backend namespaces, use namespaces, with
On Monday 17 Jan 2011 08:10:24 Stephan Boettcher wrote:
al davis ad...@freeelectron.net writes:
How about prefixing simulation attributes with a dot.
No, please, use a proper namespace prefix, like
spice- verilog- sim-
spice: verilog: sim:
Backend namespaces, use namespaces, with
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 13:50 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
As you mentioned one of the differences is the inspection of changes,
but there's another one. Track positions are more like the
programmer's object data, than like source code. So they can change
often, and often without the
Sorry, I sent this twice.
--
Peter Clifton
Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA
Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)
Tel: +44 (0)1223 748328 - (Shared lab phone, ask for me)
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 09:01 +0100, ge...@igor2.repo.hu wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 08:22:02AM +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
ge...@igor2.repo.hu writes:
If you edit one object, that won't ever move other objects around by
side effect. VCS systems I know depend on this feature. I
I would like to embed a polygon within a polygon keeping
clearance between the inner an outer. So far I have succeeded
by creating the inner shape first and then applying multiple
shapes around it.
I also drew box around the inner using standard trace.
The intent is to create an isolated ground
On 1/17/2011 7:50 AM, Markus Hitter wrote:
John, Stephan, Rick, Tibor,
many thanks for your insights. I'm convinced there _has_ to be some
sort of leadership when different, but technological equal design
solutions appear.
Am 16.01.2011 um 22:37 schrieb Rick:
To be honest, I was a little
Hi John,
Constructive comments below, but first I thought I'd get this out of the
way..
From my point of view, you often seem to treat people here with a less
respect than they deserve. I get the impression you think of the gEDA
developers as being ignorant, blinkered, or incapable directing the
Hi, all.
I am that person... Balloon4's design and layout is (at least
partly) my baby.
I'd like to do it in open tools, and for that, gEDA seems to be the
only game in town.
(Balloon4 is roughly credit card sized, and has a TI OMAP(3or4) SOC,
Xilinx FPGA, power supplies, USB, Ethernet, camera,
On Monday 17 January 2011 18:30:35 Steve Wiseman wrote:
Or should I fire up gEDA on something smaller and less visible first?
Anyone want to hold my hand while I do it?
Smaller and less visible, first, I would say, if only so that you can
get a feel for whether gEDA/pcb lacks features
Peter Clifton wrote:
What about extracting the topology of the tracks (probably using /
refactoring some code from the topological auto-router).
Isn't this what gnetlist does? I'd say, the netlist contains all topology
but no geometry.
---)kaimartin(---
--
Kai-Martin Knaak
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 21:29 +0100, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
Peter Clifton wrote:
What about extracting the topology of the tracks (probably using /
refactoring some code from the topological auto-router).
Isn't this what gnetlist does?
No - we are talking cross purposes I think. gnetlist
On 01/17/2011 12:47 AM, Colin D Bennett wrote:
It seems bad to force the drawing to be designed for a specific printer
and page (thus margin in paper space units) size.
It also seems bad for printers to not print all they are given,
when they are given a standard page size they are advertised
On 01/16/2011 11:28 PM, ge...@igor2.repo.hu wrote:
Some of the most hardcore ones are even do
modifications using text editor on regular basis, and it is often
faster than ivoking PCB for a click-around session
- you have the same diff tool, and the language is the same, so you
On Jan 17, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
On Monday 17 Jan 2011 11:07:16 John Doty wrote:
At each level in this tree the order of the branches does not matter.
No. It does matter; the ordering indicates the draw order of primitives
in any viewer or graphics exporter. Arguably,
On Jan 17, 2011, at 11:22 PM, al davis wrote:
On Monday 17 January 2011, John Doty wrote:
I'm unhappy with tuning gschem/gnetlist to be especially
friendly to any specific downstream flow. Al's favorite
downstream tool is apparently Verilog, so that seems to be
what he wants to target, with
The git/compile went fine. Using the newly built pcb gets a segfault
[ggallant@firefly pcb]$ pcb phm.pcb
Something strange here
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Some other pcb projects were able to get loaded but their existing
polygons
did not display. Creating a new
On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Peter Clifton wrote:
Hi John,
Constructive comments below, but first I thought I'd get this out of the
way..
From my point of view, you often seem to treat people here with a less
respect than they deserve. I get the impression you think of the gEDA
37 matches
Mail list logo
