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=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Nn9WBVjJFP1d4tI6dmksHiFzQeYbtBj185yCscvzwPs=; b=RgpKulqomxVNdq8eMdg2jwCVankI9YUFJhegXy0iMhAsqDrDsaaf5Nm2SxkTI7tQmO NnkbkIE4sk1HkQeMZJm3hVoQ6XVi3Pcir6H122hU6LdRoqTngX4cbeS9XHuLAURWjtfe o3dbZcev7cVpucEJLMy8iznoRpU6S+1KWe5kXFQ2XSjNd4KRY+Pt7Nl/SE9LKRtZeabb AC4bBNCeipBuRTq0NPFSkXeHV/tGM+DdJ0XUTqr60FcfO6P26roYejKcJRB0Uj0/Jxla 3CfUdh30bjMVyaHN8qhW+tIPGfDuvscA20C9yt1lN9hw06R1H9NH28A1AcDv3prjrPBe 12iw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.93.196 with SMTP id cw4mr20547064wib.54.1442183707524; Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:35:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201509132209.t8DM95OE004193@envy.delorie.com> References: <5D1C97FB-F049-4ABB-90E4-F2108647A111 AT noqsi DOT com> <201509131840 DOT t8DIecSf029011 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201509132209 DOT t8DM95OE004193 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:35:07 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] RFC: pin attribute remapping From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0438932b968476051fa88f47 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 Precedence: bulk --f46d0438932b968476051fa88f47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 2:09 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > > Aside from assigning GUIDs to each symbol as they're instantiated, I > > [snip discussion about slots that I didn't understand, because I've always been too scared to try slots after hearing the discussions] > However, I'm guessing heirarchical layout could be arbitrarily complex > in itself. It would be nice to only have to layout each subsection once and have that repeat, but that assumes each section can be laid > out exactly the same. The ASIC folks seem to have this down pat but > Are you set up with scripts to handle the basic case of one level of hierarchy? I have scripts that do this pretty well. Of course you can manually edit individual instances once they're on the board. Some of the scripts I have in mind that make my want a more scriptable pcb involve automatically remapping subcircuit layers so a pre-existing layout can more easily be stuffed into other designs. --f46d0438932b968476051fa88f47 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 2:09 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> > Aside from assigning GUIDs to each symbol as they're instanti= ated, I


[snip dis= cussion about slots that I didn't understand, because I've always b= een
too scared to try slots after hearing the discussi= ons]
=C2=A0
However, I'm guessing heirarchical layout could be arbitrarily complex<= br> in itself.=C2=A0 It would be nice to only have to layout each subsection
once and have that repeat, but that assumes each section can be laid
out exactly the same.=C2=A0 The ASIC folks seem to have this down pat but

Are you set up with scripts t= o handle the basic case of one level of hierarchy?=C2=A0 I have scripts tha= t do this pretty well.=C2=A0 Of course you can manually edit individual ins= tances once they're on the board.=C2=A0 Some of the scripts I have in m= ind that make my want a more scriptable pcb involve automatically remapping= subcircuit layers so a pre-existing layout can more easily be stuffed into= other designs.

--f46d0438932b968476051fa88f47--