kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Jean-Paul Louis <louijp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Why not collect all the field of any part being loaded, and consider all the fields that are not known as “user defined fields”?
I would not agree to have a part_reference to be the combination of two of my user fields that are Supplier1 and PN_Supplier1, Supplier2 and PN_Supplier2, etc..
Just keep those fields, that would allows the program to load ANY legacy part without breaking the bank.

Just my $0.02,
Jean-Paul
AC9GH


On May 6, 2014, at 2:28 PM, John Beard <john.j.beard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think it would be a good idea to allow unknown fields in the
> s-expression formats so that an older KiCad doesn't choke on things it
> doesn't understand, and doesn't need to.
> 
> For example, I was thinking that it might be helpful to add a field to
> the footprint format: "part_reference", which would hold a list of
> manufacturer and/or vendor IDs associated with this part. For example:
> 
>    (part_reference (fci 343233222) (farnell 1234567))
> 
> Leaving discussions on the actual usefulness of this field aside,
> clearly, an older KiCad does not need this field, it can be ignored
> harmlessly. However, when saving a footprint, an older KiCad should not
> remove this field.
> 
> Ignoring *every* unknown field might also not be the best idea, in case
> there is one day a field which an older KiCad can't understand, but
> should realise "no, this means I can't use this footprint". So maybe
> also a "fp_version" field, which, if missing, is assumed to be "1".
> Then, if a future footprint declares "(version 2)", because it knows it
> contains features a version-1 KiCad will misinterpret, that version-1
> KiCad can say "sorry, I'm version 1, you need version 2 or higher". In
> this case, it would be nicer to not set the version to 2 if you didn't
> need to, so version-1 KiCads can use the footprint.
> 
> As it currently stands, *any* KiCad would refuse to load a footprint
> with either of these fields, which is what I am proposing that we
> change. The "part_reference" field is just an example, and needs more
> thought. I was pointed to a discussion about a "device" concept, but
> that is outside the scope of this.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp