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=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=BNnkWWSoa+wLwYglTTkSYlg2Fbsm3GSBLB3MvJh1bp0=;
	b=e57Gn8QGODve/k31XFpO/xbxmTqbYdYIfqASYmapC5u1z8FvzBKdybnSukwyYKUNOZ
	UEwA2OuHezBIJ4BYkpCSkysLrgQ2MRWb1Evbo/vZMLCLnEg70GXv8/1W9DZujoREruZJ
	k6/XrzJhRhBYHTJ/x43REA1NxT+meWzjoXWOnxJBBS9HBzzxynsqYJkave6pXBpP/If7
	XgyCoEKU4bnu8r6Rltm0AmvklXA/e0VNQlD1dtZgSlkt+ymUD0WTAAIb5gV68gpqlcFu
	ol5J6lr++RiqBQ/YzUiQCqdh/Et5dh/nTIS1vuocje/EDLwL04Mgd4xRIhyCBWMpBy31
	Ak/g==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.112.134.73 with SMTP id pi9mr384214lbb.83.1444795477016;
	Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:04:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<E84E2BE6-3193-41CB-BE5E-C6EECBC7F043@noqsi.com>
References:	<1042003D-82E2-40F0-AB60-8186580C46AD AT noqsi DOT com>
	<201510121905 DOT t9CJ5T9W026297 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhTMnybSnYgnNhVZGA6PTvyJu+=Kzd5LX2HMqxT1F4LoRg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<88EA58F5-2B23-498A-9E5B-84054976DBED AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhTPPtqmWVa3=Kf-PeN+WS5Tn4J+D0Ri6R_4OrQOk+LFKQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<4D3CD563-D8EE-4B2A-975A-AC2B573960FF AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhT8WzhwvzFx3Rfv8vN-f=i1=uWuLF+48VygSRtfdzdo-A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<34B17816-9EA5-45FD-BFB4-9D623A8D3D87 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhR+K+dvDdXsbk0Y6LN=-7RhhG5wvtG4i0k4+uMgzd=H0w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<39FF6208-7D45-4DE8-9AEE-1ED1B512705B AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhROpz_3y2JB=xEkEQ3CMHqHJ_WZxqVrbQhP4q2mg40h8g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<C8AC7729-F0BC-4CFA-95DA-65CCEF10EC4E AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhTSPvQguBwNQRXEnkk5snEWxi0kTe-NXv3x42Xs6Q426Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<28E68A64-515C-4BA2-802E-EC4F77D395D5 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhTN9VsiL9fp67zDC1nQg4XcSJ7cyveEvRm7seeyhbjq+A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<E84E2BE6-3193-41CB-BE5E-C6EECBC7F043 AT noqsi DOT com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:04:36 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhTjEJJYDyviHAv9c0bw4ic3NkwD1sf0x_YNMY=RziCUDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] A lesson from gnet-makefile
From:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	gEDA users mailing list <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t9E44flD008373
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 Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 3:51 AM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 9:22 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> If you really believe in this statement ideologically we should remove
>> s_conn from the core and redo it in scheme.
>
> This crossed in the mail with my:
>
>> I think things would be easier now if the original gnetlist implementation had been entirely in Scheme.
>
> But it’s already there and working, so I use it.

And if this was there and you did not use it no one would be injured.
If it was used in someone elses back ends or what ever they would be helped.
I am not seeing your case being made here.

We have two options
1. Move s_conn to suite your new found issues with it's location
(stupid and it would break everything)
2. Write the new thing next to it so that the order of everything is maintained.

>>
>> I imagine most users will want to use flat nets and the new ones in
>> the same design just not for the same things. The new nets are for PCB
>> layout and the old ones are better for simplistic simulations.
>
> Hierarchy is good for simulations. Also IC design. Almost certainly for other things I can’t think of. This sort of imagination, discounting all of the *other* things folks can do with the toolkit, is one of the things I feel threatening and excluding.

I was not discounting that but the parasitics you pick up in any real
chip layout or pcb layout are going to be a concern that should also
get simulated if you are going to really concern yourself with stuff
at that scale. This is why I said simplistic simulations and not all
simulations. I was just trying to explain what I saw as a valid reason
to mix the two uses.

Again I put it in there but it is really becoming more of a tangent, I
guess because the word *simplistic* did not have * around it.

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



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/

- Raw text -