kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/22/2017 08:42 AM, jp charras wrote:
> Le 22/11/2017 à 14:28, Marco Ciampa a écrit :
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:14:02AM -0500, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> The devs discussed this some time ago and the general consensus is that
>>> symbol is the preferred term.  I've already started converting the UI
>>> strings to use the term symbol.  I'm sure there are UI strings that I
>>> missed.  If you find them, please let me know so I can correct them.
>>>
>>
>> I think that then there is some term confusion here ...
>>
>> #: eeschema/menubar.cpp:462
>> msgid ""
>> "Edit components to symbols library links to switch to an other library link "
>> "(library IDs)"
>>
>> This obviously is not "symbol to symbol link" ...
>>
>> I really think that we should stick with the terms "footprint" and
>> "symbol" only, and get rid of all the "component", "part", "module" and
>> such altogether...
>>
>> TIA
> 
> Sure 'This obviously is not symbol to symbol link",
> but what is the meaning of "symbol to symbol link"
> 
> Symbols live in symbol libraries, and components in schematic files, at least for this menu.
> And currently a symbol does not live in a schematic,
> and a component has a link (lib id) to the symbol it uses in the schematic.

I think the terminology should be "library symbol" and "schematic
symbol".  Both exist but schematic symbols have no graphic items other
than fields.  The actual graphical representation of the symbol itself
is a link to a symbol in a library.

> 
> Replacing module by footprint is easier, because there is no ambiguity.
>