On Nov 13, 2010, at 8:55 PM, kai-martin knaak wrote: > DJ Delorie wrote: > >>> PS: (*) Would a general switch of "element" to "footprint" receive a >>> warm welcome by the developers? This would provide more consistency >>> between geda and pcb wording. >> >> element > (...) > >> footprint > (...) > > I'll take this as a "no". > > >> I think this is consistent with gschem; a symbol in your schematic >> specifies the footprint it needs when it becomes an element on your >> board.
No. A symbol in gschem is not necessarily "elementary". It can encapsulate circuitry that itself is represented by more symbols, which encapsulate circuitry represented by more symbols... The user of gschem/gnetlist gets to decide where this process bottoms out. You can do full hierarchy, Paul Tan style, or you can plow down to genuinely elementary devices: R, C, Q, etc. This is a major part of gEDA's flexibility and scalability. But "elements" in pcb are *not* elementary. > > It may be consistent. However, it is confusing to newbies, at least > the ones I have been in touch with. IMHO, there is no need to use > different words for types of land patterns and their instantiations. Yes. A well-factored design would draw no such distinction. In a well-factored design, one would build up geometry starting with genuinely elementary objects, and compose more elaborate geometry from those elements and/or other composites. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [email protected] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
