ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
X-Recipient: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; |
d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; | |
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to | |
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; | |
bh=865wrXT/ZBsjBbWcTtbbfY51NE3ncMMTWCWmot4+AIs=; | |
b=ODrTsGstqlPWl/dyJKWZVmjNaq3EYo1r2ssQ+Vp1oFkzzxp16x5AFuwwybDsJ7ADVP | |
OWV6KmIzJIMKdu4OGaxbowIRF9V6LPlXpyk7wM4Wag0dTRCVVT+R7chtPUzTSR97oicL | |
7H41r0vnBwxM4sPSN2e8jO5XETy9xFhkE5pNBhOT5hgbqmdNhwC0vWsmglErFYGvkokx | |
+Q5EmMpMbMwlf9xIaV7EbMpfBEzQaL7GqLJT9TgYNozH6nggAUCn8peRKE77SxLdKG9V | |
jie/SniTr6cCmqRC/GRs864Db5Jhwe18i5Bz3nfZZzkjbTYymV+M9AsPl27OjLY528nK | |
FuBg== | |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Received: | by 10.182.120.4 with SMTP id ky4mr11266323obb.16.1450806728947; |
Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:52:08 -0800 (PST) | |
In-Reply-To: | <AA551CF4-5E27-4516-8380-192CA0274026@noqsi.com> |
References: | <CAJXU7q9ToaWE+wVJcF76yqHhjYZc5j95VL64cXPey-x4s_j9OA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> |
<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512221634081 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> | |
<CAJXU7q_oFvUsdQ4zB+9Kp31dhOQPZa7b21AMZ9g_=VpYN1gAnw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> | |
<B7FF4997-34E5-4E61-AD74-28BE54E45801 AT noqsi DOT com> | |
<CAJXU7q9SO+beJYXCdP4iubBnXu7WP1TrqcbJwvRtYz-2YgFQvw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> | |
<AA551CF4-5E27-4516-8380-192CA0274026 AT noqsi DOT com> | |
Date: | Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:52:08 +0000 |
Message-ID: | <CAJXU7q9sMWojw7UNrRaDR3Rxyzv2M0sx9yhFAp_Pod9wKcw_2Q@mail.gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] Cross project collaboration on data models |
From: | "Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> |
To: | gEDA User Mailing List <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> |
X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id tBMHqCsh018411 |
Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On 22 December 2015 at 17:38, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote: > The one thing that led to many corrupted schematics in one of my projects was a change in the attribute promotion policy, promoting attributes that I had intended to control in heavy symbols. That made a real mess. I suppose that the developer who made the change thought it would be helpful, but it was a naughty thing to do. Urg... I will go bang my head hard against a wall if that turned out to be something _I_ was responsible for. Definitely a naughty thing to do. Was this recently, or some time back? (Peter B and I always pushed very hard to avoid breaking things like that - existing user designs not breaking was a golden golden rule). There was a dumb case of this in PCB, when the polygon clipper was introduced. The prior graphical subtraction based code, would keep all the segmented cut pieces of a given polygon. After the clipper was introduced, it discarded all bit the single largest piece. (And added a config flag on an object to revert to the OLD behaviour). Why ever would that be a _good_ idea... a new flag, to get the OLD behaviour? Sadly. the change was made before my involvement - and changing the sense of the flag after the fact would have broken all the boards designed since the clipper was introduced. >> (And IMO, we ought to rip >> out all the flattened net-list, PCB like work-flow specific hacks out >> of gnetlist). > > Except that most layout tools (not just pcb) take flattened netlists as input. So, that’s a generally useful capability. Generally useful, but needs to be explicitly called out by the target netlister I think. (I recall gnetlist flattens by default, and acts on attributes that have their meaning pretty hard-coded). Another example, our implementation of slotting, makes makes shudder somewhat. It is one of the few cases where gEDA throws away its complete core agnosticism over attached attributes etc.. We should have introduced a more generic mechanism, then "activated" (probably with a work-flow specific plugin) it for designs which need that behaviour. Peter
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |