Dan McMahill wrote: > Steven Ball wrote: > I'm a strong believer in the schematic being the > controlling source for a board design.
That's one approach, and perfectly valid. It works well for simple designs. It communicates all aspects of a design compactly with minimal ambiguity. But: 1) It doesn't scale, and 2) It limits the useful lifetime of a design file. gEDA users need to have a choice of methodologies. The tools should conform to the methodology, not dictate the methodology. For some types of designs, having the schematics control logical function *only*, with underlying technology specified in other ways is what works best. An example would be where the logic design is very complex and outlives the implementation technology. The same design might be re-implemented (probably with small tweaks) in several different processes -- there is a good chance you are reading this e-mail using an example of just that. Keeping physical design out of the schematic is also a valid methodology, and gEDA can't preclude it. -dave _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
