Mail Archives: geda-user/2022/08/24/13:19:41
Roland Lutz:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2022, karl AT aspodata DOT se [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
...
> > As a user, I believe that it is important that the schematics I
> > make can be used in both programs.
>
> gEDA/gaf is and will be fully downwards-compatible, so any schematic that
> worked with an older version of gEDA/gaf will work with a newer version,
> as well.
Backwards compatibility (i.e. old files still works) is a good thing.
> lepton-eda somewhat breaks that,
If so, I'd it would be good to fix that, in what way does
lepton break backwards compatibility ?
...
> > Is it time to make a clean break from the "old" attributes and
> > define a new set
>
> Oh no, please don't!
The problem with the "old" set is that it is not well defined.
I don't say that we should remove the "old" set, I say we should
create something that is well defined. Also it shouldn't be
redundant like the pinseq, that could just be implicit.
...
> My preferred approach is to allow prefixing attributes with their
> respective domains (pcb:footprint=, spice:device=, and so on) but
> otherwise keep the existing semantics.
I'm fine with prefixing, but instead of
spice:device=...
why not
spice=xxxx
end let the xxxx's be a black box for everything except the spice
backend (btw. which spice) ? Or, using multiline
T ........ N
spice:
spice specific stuff
///
Btw, why do we have T ... N, when we have
the
X ...
{
X specific stuff
}
syntax ?
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
- Raw text -