=46rom my point of = view, it makes better sense that the simulation schematic is always on = the highest level of interest, not in a subcircuit. It makes more sense = to simulate the lowest level circuits first, then build more complex = circuits with them, simulate those, etc. until you've put together the = biggest thing you'll simulate.

I use pins on the components that represent connections = between controller, preamp, and power amp. I don't for just about = everything else. This lets me 1) avoid creating new symbols for = everything, and 2) declutters. My basic rule is anything you would = explicitly draw a line for in a single page schematic gets a pin. If you = would use a label, it doesn't need a pin.

So now that I have my simulation circuits handy, lurking under = graphical symbols - I want to add an action to run it. Before I go = reinventing wheels - does this capability already exist? I see spice = blocks for includes, models, but I want a spice file block that will run = the netlister on the current page, run ngspice then run a spice batch = file on that. =

Doesn't= exist. It might be possible to write a scheme script for gschem that = would do this. I would suggest that rather than using a symbol, you = drive this with a top level attribute instead. Gnetlist back ends ignore = unfamiliar top level attributes, but unfamiliar symbols confuse = them.

So:
1) Does this capability exist already?
2) Does it = offend anyone's [who has commit access] sensibility? =

I am strongly of = the opinion that facilities like this, specialized to a particular flow, = do not belong in gschem out of the box. On the other hand, the = capability to write such a thing should be present in the Guile = scripting layer, so you could write a few lines a Guile, and then = anybody could put (load ns-ngspice-personality) in a gschemrc file and = do it your way. If it can't be done, that's where to fix = it.

3) Security - I'm not used to thinking in = terms of paranoia, but it occurs to me that:

* anytime you give people the ability to execute something from = something that people think of in terms of 'data', you introduce = security issues.

* I suspect something like 99.99% of = gschem projects are viewed only by their creator - so it might not = matter.

* The security can might be kicked down the road to ngspice by = allowing only execution of the netlister, and running spice commands on = the netlist. Thus - no NEW security risks are introduced. =

4) In the interest of that last bullet - does anyone use spice other = than ngspice with gschem? =

Yes. LTspice, gnucap, and = Tanner SPICE at least. I also export netlists in SPICE format to Cadence = for ASIC layout. Most probably others. Also, I run several different = versions of ngspice (one of them locally customized) with different = names depending on the simulation.