On Monday 07 January 2008, a r wrote: > Say I have a MOS transistor instance on schematic. When I > open the properties dialog of this instance, I expect to see > a drop-list of available model types/levels, along with a > list of text fields where I can define parameters that are > relevant to the selected model type/level. All parameters > should accept expressions so that I could automate editing > and verification of the design a bit.
That's really an unreasonable request. Consider this variant: > Say I have a klystron instance on schematic. When I > open the properties dialog of this instance, I expect to see > a drop-list of available model types/levels, along with a > list of text fields where I can define parameters that are > relevant to the selected model type/level. All parameters > should accept expressions so that I could automate editing > and verification of the design a bit. Some readers might ask: "what's a klystron". That's the point. The symbol library cannot know about all variants of all symbols, all of the parameters, etc. I agree that the properties dialog has room for improvement. For one, the idea that a single attribute "value" contains the string to be passed to the simulator assumes you know the syntax for every device you use, and even then doesn't cover them all. But to have a drop-list of parameters, it needs to communicate with other tools to know what they are. We are very far from having that. Maybe that is part of what the recently discussed "database" proposals might accomplish. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
