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=wTCDOEGz16mlR0NhdINDQmrEK3CZWiJmEUq7RoMK/Ho=;
        b=UBwn95DS3Rnw7i4Z8aFL0KMTGTchn7sJbNmu3qNTsfWt5QLMZ8Rj7LrRLyVRT4XExO
         rXddMKlPX3eXN9By30PnICBrHwBiQu3RsyDPuRB/Eh3fkonqeDLLQgKoxzoJN0xojzKK
         mOPw4lQDn02YUzXEniY/MULO9/7gg+/oYZBzu3y89ELPAVMXsnas/s/zP425ghX2jE6G
         yxgu3tLCyHHfrPaustAMaQKaNF2GdfZVAQHyTTKsNzcwvQeUOIofZ5BBNypvaHRp+whR
         00gOB6/lJ1Ci+aWkVW10xbhpCZOieIsTHwbq7gfBxMirR3RVnV9kcFuG31CMYzW6DOT4
         rcvQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.198.198 with SMTP id je6mr13493776lbc.31.1444678969118;
 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201510121905.t9CJ5T9W026297@envy.delorie.com>
References: <1042003D-82E2-40F0-AB60-8186580C46AD AT noqsi DOT com>
	<201510121905 DOT t9CJ5T9W026297 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:42:49 -0400
Message-ID: <CAM2RGhTMnybSnYgnNhVZGA6PTvyJu+=Kzd5LX2HMqxT1F4LoRg@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>
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, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:05 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> A schematic doesn't capture the relationships between the net
>> segments.
>
> I've seen many non-geda schematics that *do* try to at least give a
> symbolic view of the desired network topology, especially in cases of
> star grounds or joining analog and digital grounds.  Given that
> "joining grounds" is a popular request in pcb, perhaps we need to
> reconsider having nets be fully collapsed (both on pcb and gaf).
>
> What about a heirarchical net?  I.e.
>
> (net "unnamed-5" ("U1-4" "U5-3" "R1-1"))
>
> (net "unnamed-6"
>    (net "AGND" (...))
>    (net "DGND" (...))
>    )
>
>> But, suppose instead that we had a pin attribute that said "this pin
>> may draw three amps". The netlister could then deduce which paths on
>> a net need extra conductor.
>
> You also need to know the acceptable temperature rise, although that
> could be stored elsewhere.
>
>> the pair is a balanced transmission line
>
> I'm almost thinking those are common enough to be their own type,
> since they're something more than a wire but less than a component.
> Advanced layout tools let you route them as a single "signal" too.

This is related to what we were talking about earlier here.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/geda/+bug/698771
(I have since realized there are things in the example sch file that
could use tweeking)

I also had some off list talk with John Griessen who was looking even
farther out than we are (RF layout and verilog-ams).
The output format for gnetlist is an interesting question.


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