On Monday 24 March 2008 05:47:50 al davis wrote: > With this in mind, I think the translators are the highest > priority. The need to hack files to move between our own tools > is a big turn-off. An overall project manager is important > too, but experienced users don't mind (or actually like) > separate tools. A GUI won't do any good if the file > translation isn't complete. We should be able to use the same > schematic for simulation and PC board.
Hi Al, I find this comment a little disingenuous, and I actually disagree. - We already have a translator program, albeit one-way: it's called gnetlist. I don't think it unreasonable -- no, I think it *entirely* reasonable -- for someone whose primary focus is the project management to merely rely on gnetlist for design translation. [1] - Using the same schematic for simulation & PCB production currently will require changes to *every* simulation & PCB gnetlist backend. [2] - This seems to me to look like a not-so-blatant push to get potential students to help you write the direct gEDA schematic importer for gnucap. So why not just say that then? Peter [1] Although the ability to use programs *other* than gnetlist to translate designs (and to customise gnetlist parameters for each translation) would be a priority from my POV. [2] Specifically: gnetlist backends would need to be able to set a filter on the nets & components they see. It would be good to be able to specify additional filters on the command-line, too. And you'd have to work out how to: do this in a way such that parts can be on either PCB or simulation or both; and avoid breaking existing symbol libraries. This would be a decent couple of weeks work *at least*. -- Peter Brett Electronic Systems Engineer Integral Informatics Ltd
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
