kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Vesa Solonen <vsolonen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 01.10.2010 23:42, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:

> 5) Drop support for creating components with alternate body styles (DeMorgan).

Would this mean we also lose the possibility of representing a component
with multi part symbol and combined symbol? For example some
microcontrollers fall in between where representation with one symbol is
almost too difficult, but port level splitting is not always needed. How
about opamps and comparators with or without power pins? Also style
flexibility, like IEC / old ANSI / user defined style, etc. Embedding
multiple versions of symbols to the library would be a very useful
feature. Otherwise we need to define a policy how and when to split very
large components regarding symbols. Just to mention I hate policies very
much, but like flexibility. Naturally I'm willing to make compromises if
flexibility means too much complexity or implementation cost. I may not
understand everything correctly here, so please feel free to advice ;)

> Before I submit the new file format document for comment, would you prefer a
> more readable but larger file format:
> 
> ( arc
>   ( start_point 1000 1000 )
>   ( end_point 1500 1500 )
>   ( start_angle -45.0 )
>   ( end_angle 45.0 )
>   ( unit 2 )
>   ( line_width 1 )
>   ( fill_type none )
> )
> 
> or a less readable but more compact file format:
> 
> ( arc ( 1000 1000 ) ( 1500 1500 ) -45.0 45.0 2 1 unfilled )

I like the compact approach, but maybe a "doc header" could contain the
library grammar. Would it make sense to define a non parsed comment
area? Is pin and functional block swap is one level deeper, so it was
left out from this discussion?

Thanks Wayne, for reworking the library. It's the cornerstone you
mentioned and will enable lots of usability enhancements.

-Vesa