| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
In response to a message written on 03.11.2014 16:17, from Wayne Stambaugh:
I mean, it would be nice if every directory has a file named something like ".sort", which would result in the footprints of the library would be displayed in the desired, not necessarily alphabetical order(Something like body of „$Index/$EndIndex” legacy format). Absence of the file, or its invalid format, would result in only the default sorting. For example, I have a library of IDC, in which I have the elements are arranged according to the amount of pins, when the names of the version with the hooked-snaps start with SCM, not IDC. This is the true order, when you can sequentially arranged according to your preferences. Until I had my own program to manage legacy library, I had no problem with it - all the elements are in one file, so inevitably they were stored in the desired order.On 11/3/2014 10:06 AM, LordBlick wrote:In response to a message written on 03.11.2014 15:27, from Carl Poirier:Why use the legacy footprints (…)?In legacy footprints have stay cleanup by user preferable order(I've own footprint editor developed much time, then new, messy format arrives). Alphabetically sorted is not the same, that somebody needs… It's bad idea, because it's easy to end with many doubled/tripled footprints.Duplicate footprints are no longer an issue with fp-lib-table. Prior to fp-lib-table, is was possible to load the wrong footprint if the path search order was not correct. This cannot happen with fp-lib-table not matter how many duplicate footprint names you have. I'm not sure what "messy" new format you are speaking of but the current board and footprint library formats are significantly better the legacy format and the fp-lib-table is far superior to the old path search method of looking up footprint in libraries.
Such a small blueprint. ;) -- Best Regards, LordBlick
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
