kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Marco Ciampa <ciampix@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 09:15:12PM -0700, Andy Peters wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 2017, at 7:53 AM, Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> From a user’s perspective, at least for Mario’s original question:
> 
> “Component” and “part” are synonymous. At least, this is the consensus over at the kicad.info user forum.
> 
> That consensus extends to: A component is a symbol which has an associated footprint. This implies that CvPCB is not used, and a component in a symbol library has a valid entry in its Footprint field. When you place a component onto the schematic, it contains everything necessary to use it in the layout.
> 
> If the symbol in the library has an empty footprint field, it is just a symbol. A user may create a symbol so something might be included in the BOM. A symbol might be created for use with SPICE. The power symbols are just that, symbols.
> 
> A “fully atomic part” is a symbol with a footprint and some kind of part number information to make it unique. That is, an OPA551PA symbol will have its footprint field filled in with DIP8_300 (or some other 8-pin DIP package) and a custom Part Number field is added and is filled in with something useful for the user.
> 
> All that said, whatever nomenclature ends up being chosen should be documented so everyone understands what is meant by each term.
> 

Thanks for the clarification that IHMO make sense... as you said, now we
should

1) doc it 

and 

2) use it.

TIA
Regards,

-- 


Marco Ciampa

I know a joke about UDP, but you might not get it.

------------------------

 GNU/Linux User #78271
 FSFE fellow #364

------------------------