X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-TCPREMOTEIP:	207.224.51.38
X-Authenticated-UID:	jpd AT noqsi DOT com
Mime-Version:	1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] any real issue with anonymous pins?
From:	John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<51DDE098.5050209@sonic.net>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:45:56 -0600
Message-Id:	<09AE324C-33E7-4125-A154-DF3222007238@noqsi.com>
References:	<51DDCDF5 DOT 7000807 AT sonic DOT net> <D608FEA9-14C9-452A-89C0-D53FCFC233E2 AT noqsi DOT com> <51DDE098 DOT 5050209 AT sonic DOT net>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer:	Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id r6AMk2kF006455
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 Jul 10, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Dave Curtis wrote:

>> Slotting requires "numslots", "slot", and "pinseq". Some gnetlist back ends also need "pinseq".

>>   All that slotting stuff is one of the big motivators for 'correct by construction' symbols.

Well, beware that it's impossible to be 'correct by construction' for all flows. For example, the use of "pinseq" by slotting is incompatible with its use in the spice and spice-sdb back ends. My experimental spice-noqsi back end avoids this by having other ways to handle pin sequencing.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com

- Raw text -