Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/12/30/16:34:03
John:
> 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:
> >>>
> >>>> I'd like to be able to do, gschem:
> >>>>
> >>>> . give parameters to subsheets, like
> >>>> output is to be 12V select suitable resistor devider
> >>>> this filter has this freq., select suitable components
> >>>
> >>> Neither gschem nor the schematic file format need any
> >>> modification to do this. It works nicely with SPICE. ItÂ’s a
> >>> downstream issue.
> >
> > 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.
I'm not afraid of scheme, but I'm not at ease with it. Do you have some
kind of an idea where I can start looking for entry points inte gscheme
for this kind of stuff.
> The idea that somethingÂ’s wrong with gschem because it
> doesnÂ’t have <insert favorite feature> builtin strikes me as
> an invitation to chaos and bloat.
Saying that gschem is not perfect is not the same as an invitation to
bloat.
I point to a specific problem with gschem I have. I could either go
around the problem by generating .sch source files or change gschem to
suit me. Hopefully other will like the result also while not disrupting
things for thoose that don't care.
> ItÂ’s like complaining that TeX has no built-in concept of what
> a paragraph is.
Well there is LaTeX for that.
> >>> If youÂ’re 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 thereÂ’s
> >>> a subset of reviewers and technicians who find hierarchy
> >>> challenging, and parameterized hierarchy will be even more
> >>> confusing.
> >
> > Strange, we live in world multiple hierarchies (the company, home,
> > state, etc). Do you have any idea why ?
>
> I think itÂ’s 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.
Maybe it's because some people react to programming like hitting a
wall, full stop, non comprendo. I don't understand that, but maybe
the "step-by-step" method is what that kind of people can handle.
I would be interesting to find the key to unlock thoose people.
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57
- Raw text -