X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 23:33:38 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Parameter substitution
In-Reply-To: <s6n8tws1428.fsf@blaulicht.dmz.brux>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1607232257250.1800@nimbus>
References: <98D1C4E4-581D-4A03-94E4-E0330960EADF AT wellesley DOT edu> <s6na8h89ydi DOT fsf AT blaulicht DOT dmz DOT brux> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1607231941050 DOT 16188 AT nimbus> <s6n8tws1428 DOT fsf AT blaulicht DOT dmz DOT brux>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-2027178216-1469309469=:1800"
Content-ID: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1607232331530 DOT 1933 AT nimbus>
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

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--8323329-2027178216-1469309469=:1800
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-ID: <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1607232331531 DOT 1933 AT nimbus>

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016, Stephan Böttcher wrote:
> Roland Lutz <rlutz AT hedmen DOT org> writes:
>> I had a quick glance at the patch, and it seems what you have been
>> doing is roughly equivalent to the parameter substitution patch I
>> submitted a while ago in the experimental netlister feature branch[3].
>
> This is your xorn netlister, right?

It's gnetlist, with lots of refactoring.  I probably shouldn't have used a 
different name in the first place so people don't get the wrong idea…

> Those alternatives/branches do not align with my needs.

The refactored netlister does (except for some small, well-documented 
differences) exactly the same thing as the old one.  How can that not 
align with your needs, if gnetlist does?

> I see these just divide the resources of geda for things I do not care 
> about.

I've looked through your previous mails on this list, and I think there 
are several things in the refactored netlister which you might care about:

- The individual components which make up a package can be inspected by 
the backend, as well as the individual net parts and segments which make 
up a net.  In fact, *all* information which is available to the netlister 
is available to the backend, too.

- Processing steps are cleanly separated in individual modules.  There's 
currently no mechanism in place to do that, but it wouldn't be a problem 
to skip, e.g., the slotting mechanism in the netlisting process.

- Pins for subschematic symbols don't require a pinnumber= attribute, and 
non-slotted pins don't require a pinseq= attribute.

- Named nets, subschematic pins, and port symbols can be connected (though 
some of these are IIRC set to produce a netlister error).

- There are a lot of useful warning and error messages for cases in which 
the old netlister silently produced erroneous output (e.g., identical or 
missing port symbols in a subschematic or slotting errors).

> I understood that the semantics shall be discussed, before a patch like 
> this could be considered.  No such discussion evolved.  In 2012 there 
> was nobody available to discuss.  The only response was: put it into the 
> launchpad buftracker.  It was sitting there ever since.

Unfortunately, that's how things are usually going with gEDA.

> Now, how about true hierarchical PCB layout?

I've been thinking about that much, but haven't yet come up with a really 
convincing idea on how that should work.  Do you have any suggestions?

--8323329-2027178216-1469309469=:1800--