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=GDarLxMlOYZPUIKbkYL0uU8jXXEulWbfE60Gf9wJqc4=;
	b=lYKsUNWW3xeqikRlRC62O0NH51q0IC6YagktJv8WjCNO3swOWsuynACJLDmdrRLBpP
	8nq7qxp3bW6XImCcNByp4kC9sHyOUhgegccSkRBH338QBXR3aWsAGhshrirGfSu0IUk+
	/4avKNii6mwz7s9pzOdS/m43JRHhbZ5UkIdFqV+cHaW0kjxad9Enbd9d3JJuHySXjdzL
	NRxOLt7Onluia5UOL3dy23AAuF2HCaYhJBZ7iSUCNMGkfWCsHiR2BTaT6GNR+bT+eN2Q
	u0D2Vi2Ag8MDizuT/3Kk6lR8grP4U9OPnFA/zuBlp21cA00p43SEcbvaE2NHi1NdEtrc
	OO2w==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.112.171.68 with SMTP id as4mr25488827lbc.64.1437360554889;
	Sun, 19 Jul 2015 19:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<mohenr$bj9$1@ger.gmane.org>
References:	<CAM2RGhQ70Pex5aNeQ86vKHc7sKf_Vpws69__CPb2QKg6fJTeHg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<mnv04v$if0$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
	<0A5D410F-D1EF-4FC6-AF0F-BB13218B1615 AT icloud DOT com>
	<mo1uus$cmb$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
	<201507140318 DOT t6E3IElw031504 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<mohenr$bj9$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jul 2015 02:49:14 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhROYFyVO4oRCxKtrp9Wu5rRA42weqSq8EHwpfbPz-j3+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] The new to do
From:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
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

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak <kmk AT familieknaak DOT de> wrote:
> DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>>> In particular, the many-to-many-many relation between symbols,
>>> footprints and values must be managed in the head of the user.
>>
>> IMHO the many-to-many relation is probably one of the most complex
>> problems we still need to solve.
>>
> A sufficiently versatile package format would provide a solution to
> this problem. A package can be viewed as a way to integrate the
> knowledge about the various aspects of components.
>
> A package can be as simple as a set of symbols and footprints. In this
> case the knowledge would be the implicit statement that these symbols
> and footprints are compatible. But it can also provide a list of
> footprints which can be combined with a specific symbol. It can also
> provide the information that a component needs to be represented by a
> set of symbols (e.g. a opamp could be represented by a triangle symbol
> and a separate supply symbol)

What about opamps that have more involved pinouts? For example I have
some instrumentation opamps that are really involved.

> ---<)kaimartin(>---
>



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/

- Raw text -