Let me see if I got all the bits in your description: "default" field names: - are hard-coded (or equivalent) into KiCad, - can be overridden by "wanted" or "user-defined" field names.
"wanted" aka "template" field names: - are assigned by a global (user-wide or even site-wide) configuration, - are also carried in a symbol (.lib file), - override "default" field names in the sense of, say, F2 not being shown when "wanted" field names are defined for F2, - if a "wanted" name for a field (e.g., F1) appears in both the global configuration and the symbol file, both are shown in dialogs. "user-defined" field names: - are something we have today, - are assigned on a per-symbol instance basis, - are carried in the schematics (.sch file), - override "wanted" field names. I think you didn't mention the case of per-symbol field names, which I suppose would still be around. A few questions: - which of the up to two "wanted" field names would a user-defined field replace ? Or would it be shown (in dialogs) in addition to the "wanted" names ? - you mentioned visibility (in schematics) options. If the "wanted" field names and the user-defined field name disagree on the visibility, who wins ? - would "wanted" fields also be carried in schematics (.sch file), much like "user-defined" fields get copied from symbols into their instances in schematics ? - what happens if content with the same purpose gets assigned to different fields ? E.g., if a a symbol you import has "manu1" or "manufacturer" in F3 while your company uses "manufacturer" in F4. - could one also create a "wanted" field in a symbol (.lib file) explicitly for the purpose of export, without having to change the local global (duh) configuration ? Likewise, could one strip "wanted" fields for export ? Regarding names, it seems that "wanted" aka "template" would reflect conventions at the level of an organization. This also highlights the issues one may have to consider when crossing organization boundaries. I'm not so sure having this type of organizational fields in the schematics is really a good idea. The examples you gave (manufacturer, vendor (= distributor ?), even cost) are all things that generally should not be part of schematics. So, I wonder if this is really going in the right direction. But maybe I misunderstood the use case ? Regarding names, if I got the use case right, could something like "organization-specific" and "component-specific" make the purpose clearer ? - Werner _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
