On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:47:51 -0800, Dave N6NZ wrote: >> What do we expect the schematic DRC to catch? > > The problems that apply to *my* situation and *my* technology. Also, > violations of the in-house design style guides that only I use -- for > instance, require a partnum attribute whose value exists in the > purchasing database. > > In other words, generic DRC is largely pointless. DRC should be > implemented as a DRC engine and a rules database. Of course, one hopes > that a (or two or three) good, reasonably generic rule sets can ship > with the release. End users can start with that and tweak to their own > needs.
Yesss! I am strongly in favor of such design checks for both, schematic and layout. Hard coded rules are better than nothing, but necessarily fail to fit important cases. The language to describe rules should be as flexible as possible, allow for exceptions and generally apply all kinds of logic. Sounds like prolog to me... ---<(kaimartin)>--- -- Kai-Martin Knaak http://lilalaser.de/blog _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
