kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Jean-Paul Louis <louijp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Andy,

I disagree with your statement that component and part are the same thing.

A component is a term used for the generic part, like a 10k resistor, a 7474 digital IC, a 741 op amp, etc..
A part on the opposite side is a one to one relationship, unique to a single supplier.

So you cannot mix component and part unless you are a careless designer who does not care about
the specifications differences between manufacturers. I have seen too many designs fail when changing supplier.
A hobbyist might not care in a one of a kind design, but a professional will test for compatibility
of the various sources in extreme cases, like high and low power supply, and temperatures extremes.

Just my two cents,
Jean-Paul
N1JPL

> On Nov 24, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Andy Peters <devel@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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