X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Virus-Status:	Clean
X-Virus-Scanned:	clamav-milter 0.98.4 at av02.lsn.net
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] ideas on slotting and mechanisms for
	grouping/associating heterogenous symbols.
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References:	<CAM2RGhS4L-ch6FEcLtdSt0vA0BdQZvq+AuFDP+9ea7Ftd=AALg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<8444F816-17CE-4A56-A982-4A60DEDA72B8 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300544550 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv>
	<87FC7D4C-157A-499E-8B93-97653D6A7C68 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1601012231450 DOT 1728 AT newt>
	<AE52C1DB-01A3-43FA-AE8E-68AD33F37180 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<624E6A69-62CE-4FCB-9D44-9FDF036254A3 AT sbcglobal DOT net>
	<56880043 DOT 7040003 AT ecosensory DOT com>
	<20160102182739 DOT 5d195829880cf75768ae0a82 AT gmail DOT com>
	<201601021755 DOT u02HtOWs020325 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
From:	John Griessen <john AT ecosensory DOT com>
Message-ID:	<568813F7.9000304@ecosensory.com>
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 2016 12:16:23 -0600
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
	Icedove/38.4.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<201601021755.u02HtOWs020325@envy.delorie.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

On 01/02/2016 11:55 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> I agree, refdes is good choice.
> Note that giving refdes this special meaning, means that gate swapping
> (or sharing, across heirarchy instances) between packages is no longer
> an option.  Is that a reasonable compromise?

I had never thought of hierarchic board schematic or layout this way before just now.


I suppose it might have value, but I mostly thought of hierarchy in packages on boards
as a way to quickly design, no more.  There is a negative in many instances where you
would do multiple channels -- anything analog.  spaghetti of utilizing nearby groups for
tighter layout and autorouting could easily give simulation changes and crosstalk changes that are unwanted.

Would you have the group top level definition be an attribute also?  It could be good in a sea of
dual and quad gates that are digital switch glue next to some analog.  In such a case you would want to separate
analog and digital into two modules that are always adjacent, and only allow the swapping in the digital parts.

- Raw text -