Hi,
[snip]
>Can you please tell me more about this mechanism you're thinking
>about? From what you write here it seems like exactly what my
>abstract-symbols branch does, whose mention seems to evoke exactly one
>reaction: "Uhm, yeah, okay". I'm finding it ultra frustrating to read
>thread upon thread upon thread about this heavy-vs-light problem and
>what to do about it, when seemingly nobody has even tried the solution
>in my branch (most likely explanation for zero feedback). I don't
>think there's much "automatic this or that" beyond the minimum
>necessary.
The one thing that bothers me about your abstract-symbols
mechanism (yes I did try it a while ago) is that the end user has to
instanciate two symbols instead of just one. From the example from the
referenced post:
...
C 44100 44900 1 0 0 nand-1.sym
...
and
...
C 42300 41300 1 0 0 7400-slots.sym
...
That seems odd and I would have a hard time explaining that to
end users. I like the idea of a "nand-1.sym" (yeah!), but I don't like
the idea that you also have place a 7400-slots.sym. My approach will
only require one instanciated component (nand-1.sym) which is "modified"
(exactly how is what I'm currently working on) with the additional
netlisting specific information.
-Ales
_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
