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; bh=GDarLxMlOYZPUIKbkYL0uU8jXXEulWbfE60Gf9wJqc4=; b=lYKsUNWW3xeqikRlRC62O0NH51q0IC6YagktJv8WjCNO3swOWsuynACJLDmdrRLBpP 8nq7qxp3bW6XImCcNByp4kC9sHyOUhgegccSkRBH338QBXR3aWsAGhshrirGfSu0IUk+ /4avKNii6mwz7s9pzOdS/m43JRHhbZ5UkIdFqV+cHaW0kjxad9Enbd9d3JJuHySXjdzL NRxOLt7Onluia5UOL3dy23AAuF2HCaYhJBZ7iSUCNMGkfWCsHiR2BTaT6GNR+bT+eN2Q u0D2Vi2Ag8MDizuT/3Kk6lR8grP4U9OPnFA/zuBlp21cA00p43SEcbvaE2NHi1NdEtrc OO2w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.171.68 with SMTP id as4mr25488827lbc.64.1437360554889; Sun, 19 Jul 2015 19:49:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0A5D410F-D1EF-4FC6-AF0F-BB13218B1615 AT icloud DOT com> <201507140318 DOT t6E3IElw031504 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 02:49:14 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] The new to do From: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote: > DJ Delorie wrote: > >>> In particular, the many-to-many-many relation between symbols, >>> footprints and values must be managed in the head of the user. >> >> IMHO the many-to-many relation is probably one of the most complex >> problems we still need to solve. >> > A sufficiently versatile package format would provide a solution to > this problem. A package can be viewed as a way to integrate the > knowledge about the various aspects of components. > > A package can be as simple as a set of symbols and footprints. In this > case the knowledge would be the implicit statement that these symbols > and footprints are compatible. But it can also provide a list of > footprints which can be combined with a specific symbol. It can also > provide the information that a component needs to be represented by a > set of symbols (e.g. a opamp could be represented by a triangle symbol > and a separate supply symbol) What about opamps that have more involved pinouts? For example I have some instrumentation opamps that are really involved. > ---<)kaimartin(>--- > -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/