Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/12/30/13:45:09
--Apple-Mail=_BE8ED586-436B-4242-84B8-909FDDD7DC13
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252
On Dec 30, 2015, at 11:00 AM, karl AT aspodata DOT se wrote:
> Nicklas Karlsson:
>>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 6:34 AM, karl AT aspodata DOT se wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> I'd like to be able to do, gschem:
>>>>=20
>>>> . give parameters to subsheets, like
>>>> output is to be 12V select suitable resistor devider
>>>> this filter has this freq., select suitable components
>>>=20
>>> Neither gschem nor the schematic file format need any
>>> modification to do this. It works nicely with SPICE. It=92s a
>>> downstream issue.
>=20
> Ok, that is one way to do it. I meant more that I wanted gschem to
> be able to show alt. the formula or the result, i.e. with the
> parameter/formula applied.
OK, so go with the logic of the tool and write Scheme scripts to do =
this.
The idea that something=92s wrong with gschem because it doesn=92t have =
<insert favorite feature> builtin strikes me as an invitation to chaos =
and bloat. It=92s like complaining that TeX has no built-in concept of =
what a paragraph is.
>=20
>>> If you=92re doing this for layout in a big project, I think
>>> you probably want the capability to use automatically generated
>>> schematic files as your intermediates. The reason is that there=92s
>>> a subset of reviewers and technicians who find hierarchy
>>> challenging, and parameterized hierarchy will be even more
>>> confusing.
>=20
> Strange, we live in world multiple hierarchies (the company, home,
> state, etc). Do you have any idea why ?
I think it=92s related to a preference for step-by-step thinking. I =
contribute to the Mathematica Stack Exchange group, and the most common =
thing I see that makes code hard to understand and debug is that some =
insist on coding step by step with For[] rather than transforming whole =
structures with Map[], Thread[], etc. The same thing applies to those =
who struggle with Scheme, I think.
>=20
>> Yes parameterized hierarchy would probably be hard to get simple
>> and easy to understand and otherwise it would only add confusion
>> while it is supposed to make things easier. I use to add
>> calculations as a text or possible some text about where
>> calculations or suitable documentation could be found.
>=20
> Parameters (or what to call it) is part of the design process so it
> should be natural to have them in a schemata. So the problem is to
> make gschem to show either the formula as is or it evaluated.
>=20
> Regards,
> /Karl Hammar
>=20
> =
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Asp=F6 Data
> Lilla Asp=F6 148
> S-742 94 =D6sthammar
> Sweden
> +46 173 140 57
>=20
>=20
>=20
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
--Apple-Mail=_BE8ED586-436B-4242-84B8-909FDDD7DC13
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org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=33gI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_BE8ED586-436B-4242-84B8-909FDDD7DC13--
- Raw text -