X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <1437341762.1559.2.camel@ssalewski.de>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Difference between attached and detached attributes
From: Stefan Salewski <mail AT ssalewski DOT de>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:36:02 +0200
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1507191236120.3281@nimbus>
References: <55A813B5 DOT 4040609 AT sbcglobal DOT net>
	  <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1507190000470 DOT 2893 AT nimbus>
	 <1437260376 DOT 699 DOT 31 DOT camel AT ssalewski DOT de>
	 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1507191236120 DOT 3281 AT nimbus>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 2015-07-19 at 12:36 +0200, Roland Lutz wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> > Have you experience with attached multiline attributes?
> 
> Line breaks aren't treated specially in attribute, so they can be part of 
> both the attribute name and value.  The first equals sign spearates the 
> name from the value; further equals signs are part of the value.
> 
> > aa=bb
> > cc=dd
> 
> In this example, "aa" is the attribute name, and "bb\ncc=dd" is the 
> attribute value.  For show_name_value=value, gschem displays
> 
> bb
> cc=dd
> 
> and for show_name_value=name, it consequently displays
> 
> aa
> 
> > But if I understood John Doty correctly he used something like
> >
> > xxx=
> > aa=bb
> > cc=dd
> >
> > for spice. Is that valid, and how to display for "show_value"?
> 
> You would display anything that follows the first equals sign--an empty 
> line, a line containing "aa=bb", and a line containing "cc=dd".
> 

Thanks for the explanation. This saves me searching in the
documentation. Indeed I saw that behaviour in gschem, but did not know
that it was really intended.