On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 07:01:25 -0400, Ales Hvezda wrote: > I have always been under the impression that people would prefer B since > they could replace the default/supplied mapping program with something > of their own choosing. If it was built into gschem, it would be harder > to replace/modify/etc...
Well, I am not "people" and can only speak for myself. I am all in favor of footprint mapping inside gschem. It keeps the information inside the schematic file, which is where it is appropriate. Separate mapping files would introduce a load of new ways a design might break (not synchronized files, wrong format, etc..). Default mapping and frequently chosen mappings should be stored on a per symbol basis (see my other posting). As a user I don't dare to modify the mapping procedure, but only the mapping result. A solution inside gschem does not prevent post processing the *.sch file with a mapping script. ---<(kaimartin)>--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak http://lilalaser.de/blog _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
