On 15 December 2010 14:41, Wayne Stambaugh <stambau...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 12/15/2010 7:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote: >> On 14 December 2010 22:49, Wayne Stambaugh <stambau...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> I made some ,inor changes to clarify inherited vs base part and changed >>> LPID names reflect local naming convention as suggested by Dick. >>> >>> Wayne >>> >>> On 12/14/2010 9:39 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: >>>> I know all of you've been on the edge of your seats waiting for the the new >>>> part file format since Dick announced his plans to start working on the >>>> distributed library. So without further ado, attached is the preliminary >>>> copy >>>> of the library part file specification. Please take a look at it and make >>>> sure >>>> I didn't forget anything. I have tried to accommodate all of the previous >>>> library discussions as best I could. If I missed something, it wasn't >>>> intentional so please let me know so I can revise the specification. >>>> >>>> Initially, I would like keep the discussion focused on what is missing and >>>> how >>>> it should be implemented. Please keep the discussion on semantics like "I >>>> would rather use thickness instead of line_width" until after we've >>>> hammered >>>> out all of the technical issues. >>>> >>>> Once we have a consensus, I will convert the document into a more formal >>>> format >>>> similar to the current file specification documents and commit it to the >>>> documentation repo since that is were the rest of Kicad's documentation >>>> resides. >>>> >>>> I know it's been a long time coming so thank you for your patience. >>>> >>>> Wayne >> >> Hi Wayne, >> >> I just got a look through the doc. I have a few questions/observations for >> you: >> >> (1) If I browsed a library for a part which contains all of the parts >> information below the line: >> # This is an example of a dual input NAND gate A of a 7400. >> in the document, does this mean that I would see all of the parts for >> selection? i.e. dual_input_nand_a, dual_input_nand_b, >> dual_input_nand_c, dual_input_nand_d, dual_input_nand_demorgan_a, >> dual_input_nand_demorgan_b, dual_input_nand_demorgan_c, >> dual_input_nand_demorgan_d, 7400, 74LS00, and SN74HCT00NSR >> >> I would have thought there would need to be a way in the syntax of >> showing what was a selectable/finished part and what was merely a >> "symbol" or partial part which should not be allowed to be entered >> into the schematic directly. >> >> Ah, actually, I see you might be using the value field for this >> purpose. Only values are selectable parts perhaps? >> >> (2) I could see a pin rename function being handy. At the moment it is >> possible to delete a pin and then add a new pin in, but this would >> mean re-defining all of the other pin properties. >> >> (pin_rename NUMBER NAME) >> >> Another method might be to have overriding of pin attributes. For example: >> >> (part “dual_input_nand_a” >> (reference “U”) >> (pin input line (at -600 100 180) >> (name “” (font (size 60 60)) (visible yes)) >> (number “1” (font (size 60 60)) (visible yes)) >> (visible yes)) >> ) >> >> (part “dual_input_nand_b” inherits “dual_in_nand_a/rev1” >> (pin_del 7) >> (pin_del 14) >> (pin_renum 1 4) >> (pin_renum 2 5) >> (pin_renum 3 6) >> (pin (number "4") (name "D")) >> (pin (number "5") (name "E")) >> (pin (number "6") (name "F")) >> ) > > Brian, > > Pin renaming makes sense to me. I would like to keep the item_action concept > for consistency. In other words: > > (pin (number "4") (name "D")) > > becomes > > (pin_rename "4" "D") > > If you don't have any objections, I'll update the specification. > > Wayne
Hi Wayne, Yes I think that is the best and neatest method, I'm sure it'll be useful. Many Thanks, Brian. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
