X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=iWewZFYRya1uWfw0JjZfMTLbqX2ia2jsZOy9/hCwPpM=;
	b=SDiP7smdNMpKPQY89hat2X6GSa9RpETgkEJJFI8Hbtb/fHTTve0MNeDyMfYVgMoo2d
	rphGpXOansdXgmyQS6w2S47TbXLDwLvlWZN3bg++hhznHG7LM44O+WZ6yFVB5/0A55Ph
	ZIDj4STLM/Y5CZQBBBjfqpwzoxArHJwCuY72Yoh4HjbhfThws4Jda0mza0jdsF1BCfx/
	U90vuvmJl+w5eYF7+q9KABh9dXUxdFN8YouFF4Uta5ab6Ef3uLFci6hRZ4uIa7mPct+S
	itXqQDpi9ouDqFSvtZ4Lr+TYa6kVdbIeDERLNzuUmc4mWzJgSqd181CEzU23YJ44osBt
	4XkA==
X-Received:	by 10.25.133.84 with SMTP id h81mr11590492lfd.126.1451761581695;
	Sat, 02 Jan 2016 11:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Sat, 2 Jan 2016 20:06:16 +0100
From:	"Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] ideas on slotting and mechanisms for
	grouping/associating heterogenous symbols.
Message-Id:	<20160102200616.8ba9671be2f008afb5323804@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To:	<568813F7.9000304@ecosensory.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>
	<568813F7 DOT 9000304 AT ecosensory DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version:	1.0
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.


It might be better to just keep slotting out of the hierarchy.

It would be possible to use equal refdes as default with possibility to override with a slot number but it would screw up the naming. Another option would be to modify naming for hierarchy or allow swapping of any equal symbol.

If something else than refdes is used for slotting there will be a need to back annotate the refdes attribute unless of course more than one footprint with same refdes is allowed or one refdes per gate is used. One refdes per gate is tempting but use a lot of space.

Nicklas Karlsson

- Raw text -