X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:25:46 -0400
Message-Id: <201510182225.t9IMPkxK032763@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <36B94694-F2AC-4A75-A8EB-40A1CE9A534C@noqsi.com> (message from
	John Doty on Sun, 18 Oct 2015 16:19:12 -0600)
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Pin mapping (separate symbols from mappings)
References: <20151018204010 DOT 9cce6a231dcc296256e187bd AT gmail DOT com> <201510181843 DOT t9IIhmWo025346 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20151018234424 DOT c0551dad9bef0859130239d9 AT gmail DOT com> <36B94694-F2AC-4A75-A8EB-40A1CE9A534C AT noqsi DOT com>
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> In my opinion, geda-gaf must remain neutral with respect to the
> specifics of the downstream flow.

If we added a tool that sat between gschem and <downstream> that
"heavified" symbols, would that tool be part of geda-gaf and thus have
to be neutral about <downstream>, or would that tool not be, and thus
something geda-gaf would have to be neutral about?