X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
From:	"Markus" <geda AT traidl DOT de>
To:	<geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
References:	<000301cd644d$75518ab0$5ff4a010$@de> <20120717160113 DOT 2caabc78 AT svelte> <500669D1 DOT 7000206 AT estechnical DOT co DOT uk> <CAJisMU3X=s4YhgKxZsxQ7+Z4Obz=9xuKZjbveU9NL8aLQ482Pg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20120718183701 DOT GA4077 AT alpha2>
In-Reply-To:	<20120718183701.GA4077@alpha2>
Subject:	AW: [geda-user] gnetlist: allow net= attributes without a pin number
Date:	Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:50:24 +0200
Message-ID:	<002901cd651e$934e9f40$b9ebddc0$@de>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index:	Ac1lFIzStDhWHmg/SbSLiqa2JLVvfAACSEKQ
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id q6IJoXdo018634
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com

Although I agree that this would be a special case, I think the thought of how inelegant this is vanishes once you begin to do some real work with geda. Personally I've been using my patched version of geda for real work simply because the official version would be a major pain to use. And defaulting pinnumber to 1 is among the most important patches in my stack.

Now, I don't claim that this is the best way to solve the problem, but as a user I wouldn't want to use geda if it forced me to edit several attributes for what should esssentialy be a simple operation.

As a developer, I can totally understand the need to write simple, consistent and elegant code, but when it comes to designing a board, the tradeoff suddenly becomes painfully clear and I just use the patched version.

--
Hello,

I fully agree to your points ...

I am a hardware developer and I to do my board first. Afterwards I am planning to do some software.
Because of lack of software skills I am not easily able to do all the patching - actually I have the fear, that then the  patch would not work on new versions of geda.

So, as mentioned in the previous discussions, there might be different solutions.

The "goal" for me would be, that adding an port will be easier than it is now (with the :1 feature).

For me it looks like, there is a not "perfect" solution which would be available now ...
And there might be a "perfect" concept which will applied somewhen later ...

So, I am looking forward for any "soon" solution ;-)))

Regards,

Markus

PS: byt the way: thanks to all the people who did a great programming job with geda

- Raw text -