On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 11:33 -0600, John Doty wrote: > > Classification is opposed to modular, orthogonal design. Don't > classify, describe. Impedance, current handling capability, maximum > length, etc. are independent properties. gEDA's attribute-oriented > design makes this quite natural. > > Do not start from GUI and torque the design around according to that. > Find a well-factored, orthogonal description of the problem space and > then worry about capturing it graphically if necessary. Be hard-nosed > about the "if necessary". >
Modular, orthogonal design is fine. A tractor is a fine versatile device, connected with a hanger we have a powerful tool for carrying load. Really modular, with a well defined interface. But many people prefer cars for the transport of people, and trucks for the transport of load. I think there can exist cases where modular, orthogonal design can generate more trouble than benefit. gschem and PCB may be such a case, I am not sure. I know that we have attributes in gschem. Unfortunately we need gnetlist with guile to transfer information. This is fine when we only generate a netlist from schematic and read that netlist into PCB. But I think we should transfer much more information from gschem to PCB program, and maybe back, pin swap and back annotation. Best regards. Stefan Salewski _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
