On 01.10.2010 23:42, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: > 5) Drop support for creating components with alternate body styles (DeMorgan).
Would this mean we also lose the possibility of representing a component with multi part symbol and combined symbol? For example some microcontrollers fall in between where representation with one symbol is almost too difficult, but port level splitting is not always needed. How about opamps and comparators with or without power pins? Also style flexibility, like IEC / old ANSI / user defined style, etc. Embedding multiple versions of symbols to the library would be a very useful feature. Otherwise we need to define a policy how and when to split very large components regarding symbols. Just to mention I hate policies very much, but like flexibility. Naturally I'm willing to make compromises if flexibility means too much complexity or implementation cost. I may not understand everything correctly here, so please feel free to advice ;) > Before I submit the new file format document for comment, would you prefer a > more readable but larger file format: > > ( arc > ( start_point 1000 1000 ) > ( end_point 1500 1500 ) > ( start_angle -45.0 ) > ( end_angle 45.0 ) > ( unit 2 ) > ( line_width 1 ) > ( fill_type none ) > ) > > or a less readable but more compact file format: > > ( arc ( 1000 1000 ) ( 1500 1500 ) -45.0 45.0 2 1 unfilled ) I like the compact approach, but maybe a "doc header" could contain the library grammar. Would it make sense to define a non parsed comment area? Is pin and functional block swap is one level deeper, so it was left out from this discussion? Thanks Wayne, for reworking the library. It's the cornerstone you mentioned and will enable lots of usability enhancements. -Vesa _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
