X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer:	exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 (debian 1:2.8.0~rc1-2) with nmh-1.5
X-Exmh-Isig-CompType:	repl
X-Exmh-Isig-Folder:	inbox
From:	karl AT aspodata DOT se
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] XML file format (what could be expected)
In-reply-to:	<E3505710-C2C7-4C07-8360-ADD4E6728AAF@noqsi.com>
References:	<20151220120219 DOT c4644eef1a65b0eb2fb60d76 AT gmail DOT com> <20151220122659 DOT 378AF809D791 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <20151220120219 DOT c4644eef1a65b0eb2fb60d76 AT gmail DOT com> <20151220125839 DOT 10228 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> <20151220133436 DOT 0B120809D791 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <0BA0A334-56C7-47B7-959F-C0131BED822C AT noqsi DOT com> <20151220173341 DOT fb4442a7816009e9f4e943b6 AT gmail DOT com> <20151230180007 DOT B4391809D79B AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <20151230194212 DOT 312d35a02f7f667b8b1f92af AT gmail DOT com> <E3505710-C2C7-4C07-8360-ADD4E6728AAF AT noqsi DOT com>
Comments:	In-reply-to John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
	message dated "Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:01:24 -0700."
Mime-Version:	1.0
Message-Id:	<20151230213354.277D0809D79C@turkos.aspodata.se>
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:33:54 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned:	ClamAV using ClamSMTP
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

John Doty:
> On Dec 30, 2015, at 11:42 AM, Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> > 
> > An annotation mechanism may be a solution if could be made
> > without adding confusion.

I don't know what "annotation" means.

> ItÂ’s tricky when you consider exporting hierarchical netlists
> rather that flattening. The netlisters have to understand either:
> 
> 1. Substitution of the parameters in a flat netlist.
> 
> Or
> 
> 2. Translation of the parameter syntax to that used downstream 
> in a hierarchical netlist.

Wouldn't it suffice for the time being to simply generate a flat
netlist.

How many downstreams would understand a hierarchical netlist ?
Yes, it wwould be nice, but if there is no support for any
hierarchical things in downstream, there is no point at implementing
it in netlist.

Regards,
/Karl Hammar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57

- Raw text -