On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 09:23 +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote: > Peter Clifton <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 17:10 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > >> > >> What you want is a four-slot-slotted gate symbol, and a separate power > >> symbol. The slots permute across {gate 1, gate2} x {A-B inputs, B-A > >> inputs}. I.e. you can use the slotting to switch gates *or* swap the > >> pins. It's worth the effort to get this working smoothly. > > > > ARGH!! Sounds like a real misuse of the slotting feature to me. It makes > > any potential DRC checks for "did the user use all the slots" near > > impossible to implement as well. > > To me this sounds like a very good use of a flexible sloting mechanism. > With some extra attributes to steer the DRC this should be all fine and > transparent.
It is a perfect example of why gEDA can never grow more "friendly" interfaces to these problems. _Because_ the existing interface can be abused - and people think it is a good idea to encourage such "flexibility", we end up with designs out there relying on the behaviour. The exponential increase of special-cases / "what if the user abused the feature by doing .....", stops us from wrapping any of these features in nicer interfaces. It prevents decent attribute validation / design rule checks, and any hope of wrapping a GUI around the problem (should that be desired). If you propose adding extra attributes to steer the DRC system around the hack, you might as well propose an expressive attribute based scheme for pin / gate swapping instead. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
