kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/14/2014 4:43 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 13 October 2014 17:22, Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2014 9:14 PM, Mark Roszko wrote:
>>> Very minor but the main KiCAD window calls it "Schematic Library
>>> Editor", eeschema calls it "Library Editor" and the window itself is
>>> "Parts Library Editor".
>>>
>>> Can the name be standardized?
>>>
>>> It might be better to just call it "Component Library Editor" because
>>> that's what the schematic symbols are called instead of Parts. Just
>>> like PCB Footprint Editor is for Footprints.
>>>
>>
>> The easy answer to your question is yes, the naming can and should be
>> consistent.  The hard part of your question is consistently what?  This
>> topic has been thoroughly discussed before.  You will find there is
>> really no consensus.  Personally, I prefer symbol.  When I think of
>> parts or components, I think of the physical objects themselves.  I
>> don't actually place a resistor or an IC in a schematic.  I place a
>> symbolic representation of that component in my schematic.  Dick's
>> preference was part and he had valid justifications for his preference.
>>  He even renamed some of the Eeschema code object names from COMPONENT
>> to PART.  I really don't have a strong preference, that's why I never
>> pushed the issue.  I doubt you are going to get a consensus on this
>> issue.  You'll have to pick a term and live with the unhappy developers
>> and users.  Welcome to open source programming :).
> 
> I think the manual should probably be the defacto standard, or at
> least the first place to look in these inconsistency issues. The
> manual uses component throughout and indeed Component name in the UI
> Component properties dialog. All the screenshots show Component too.
> If eeschema has changed these, they should be changed back. If a
> change is made, it'll have to also be rippled through the
> documentation which is a very heavy change and that in turn may cause
> the translators a headache too.
> 
> Part is not a good candidate because, as per the manual we already
> have something designated a part and that is essentially the
> individual "gates" in the multi-gate IC. I find the description of
> parts per package a bit weird, it should really be "Number of parts
> per component"  and "Parts in component locked (cannot be swapped)"

Actually the term "Unit" is used for UI strings not parts.  This is a
case of the documentation lagging the code changes.  I made that change
a while ago in response to a bug report about naming consistency and
confusing terminology.  I believe I changed everything concerning
components with multiple sub-units.  If I missed anything, please let me
know and I will fix it.

> 
> Of course,it looks like the manual and editor are out-of-sync as the
> library editor refers to parts as units and components as parts. It
> can get so confusing when the two are not in sync! It'll take longer
> to fix the documentation compared to fixing the code most likely.
> 
> I would call it "Schematic Library Editor" or else "Component Library
> Editor", the latter probably being more accurate.

I fine with changing the UI strings to use the term component.

> 
> I also don't have a strong opinion, but consistency is key.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Brian.
>