Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/02/12/10:25:52
On Feb 11, 2015, at 11:08 PM, Gabriel Paubert <paubert AT iram DOT es> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:08:32PM -1000, John Doty wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak <knaak AT iqo DOT uni-hannover DOT de> wrote:
>>
>>> A unambiguous sort of symbols on save would finally solve a still standing
>>> issue you may remember: gnetlist behaves differently depending on the
>>> order symbols were added.
>>
>> I agree this is an annoyance. However, take account of the problem of filled graphics, where one may manipulate that order to get the appearance you want. That might require the addition of layer numbers to the format in to work with canonicalization.
>
> I believe filled graphics are a rather recent addition to gschem
They’ve been in gschem for several years. I don’t remember exactly: I don’t use them.
> (I can't see any in my schematics),
You probably won’t until you make some or grab a symbol that contains some. As far as I know, the distributed library has no filled graphics.
> this rather shows that they
> were not properly designed in the first place IMO.
It would be nice to have a gschem whose graphics were more modern: groups, layers, inspectors, text edit in place, etc. Groups and layers would require some changes in the details of the .sch file format. We’ve had such changes before (the addition of filled graphics is one). They have not been particularly disruptive. Most non-libgeda-based scripts operate primarily on single-line attributes. Symbol generators do a little drawing, but as long as the full-service parsers maintain backward compatibility (the v record helps) everything is fine.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -