Steven Michalske wrote: > Your suggestion sounds like an implementation I would call a logical > hierarchy > > ( A hierarchy could be one level deep, and flat in the first place. ) > > workflow > logical hierarchy ---implement---> physical hierarchy ---flatten?---> > physical flat design. > > Then the physical flat design gets plumbed through the various other > workflows. > > The implement step could have things like > - The connector script I have seen flowing around, that makes tables > of nets and pins into a connector. > - A generic R and C converter ( a very simple light to heavy converter ) > - A light to heavy converter, connected to a parts database. > - Many other tools that can add the metadata of a design >
Yea, I think I'm beginning to see that. Time for some brainstorming... * a schematic "symbol" represents some or all of a "component" * a "component" might satisfy the functionality indicated by more than one symbol * a "component" comes in one or more "footprints" * "footprints" are used by more than one component * schematic hierarchy symbols are just collections of "symbols" Man, the scripts to make all the above work just sound like a connect-the-dots type of exercise. But the computer scientist that isn't in me just isn't jumping up and down going "oooh, I know! I know!!" just yet. :) The good news is, perhaps, that implementing a workflow based on the above should be possible with the current gaf tools. It's really just an exercise in not using functionality in the existing tools that are trying to implement certain cases of the above already. Does any of this sound familiar to anyone? Solved problem anywhere we can look to for inspiration? b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [email protected] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
