On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:38 -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: > Kai-Martin Knaak wrote: > > > > > > The two other EDA suites I worked (eagle and protel) with maintain the > > notion of a "component" that contains all the info. In a way, this is a > > very heavy symbol that knows about slots, possible footprints and which > > schematic symbols are necessary to represent a complete component. > > > > They carry the symbol along with the component though, right? So if the > system doesn't know about a component in advance, it won't offer you a > symbol. > > That's not what I want. I want the concepts of symbols and components > to be completely separate, tied together only by meta-information that > says "this circuit can be represented by this symbol", and "this > component contains these circuits". >
My feeling is also, that multiple files is the better, but more complicated solution. For the "very heavy symbol": For a brand new OpAmp, you make a copy of such a large, very heavy symbol and modify only a small part. Much redundancy. May be not too bad for a company, but not so good for the FOS world with basar style? What do we need for an OpAmp? 1. Pins: In+, In-, Out, V+, V- 2. Graphics 3. Attributes like name, refdes,... 4. Relations, i.e. Power symbols or other Banks of FPGA 5. Mapping of Pinnames to Pinnumbers for different Footprints 6. Spice Model 7. More... 1 and 2 is the close related abstract stuff, maybe it should be in one single file. And maybe the rest in another file? _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
