On 12/26/2010 11:14 PM, Chris Giorgi wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> I've been lurking on this thread for quite a while and feel this topic
> is one I should chime in on.
>
> The concept of keeping part names as filenames sounds promising on its
> face, but I can envision several potential pitfalls. Fir
Good evening,
I've been lurking on this thread for quite a while and feel this topic
is one I should chime in on.
The concept of keeping part names as filenames sounds promising on its
face, but I can envision several potential pitfalls. First, it
requires that the parts be stored in a filesystem
On 12/20/2010 5:10 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> | Another idea to consider, along with others until a decision is made, is:
>> put a comment into the file to act as a 'hint' only. The hint is only
>> consulted when the part is
>> outside its container. Some cases are if you have it on the clipbo
On Dec 20, 2010, at 20:29 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/20/2010 1:42 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 12/14/2010 04:49 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> I made some ,inor changes to clarify inherited vs base part and changed
>>> LPID names reflect local naming convention as suggested by Dick.
>
| Another idea to consider, along with others until a decision is made, is:
> put a comment into the file to act as a 'hint' only. The hint is only
> consulted when the part is
> outside its container. Some cases are if you have it on the clipboard or it
> is printed out on
> paper, or it in an
On 12/20/2010 02:29 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/20/2010 1:42 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 12/14/2010 04:49 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> I made some ,inor changes to clarify inherited vs base part and changed
>>> LPID names reflect local naming convention as suggested by Dick.
>>>
>>> W
On 12/20/2010 1:42 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 12/14/2010 04:49 PM, Wayne Stambaugh 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
>
>
> Wayne and others,
>
>
> I coded the ini
On 12/14/2010 04:49 PM, Wayne Stambaugh 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
Wayne and others,
I coded the initial major portion of DIR_LIB_SOURCE this weekend. I believe
t
On 12/15/2010 08:25 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
Maybe I should change the current pin_swap to
pin_relocate and use pin_swap to indicate that pins are interchangeable
a the net list level.
Yes - that is the terminology used with other CAD systems (PadsLogic, Orcad-capture etc).. Pin swap
- gate
On 12/15/2010 06:37 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
It will also require some diligence on the
user's part but I would rather not limit pin swaps to electrically
equivalent pins.
I understand not wanting to tie someones hands - but I'm not sure how that is
useful?
Just to be clear, some of the aut
On 12/16/2010 02:50 PM, Simon Rogers wrote:
> Could the schematic support multiple parts lists?
>
> I'm thinking of the problem supporting different builds say a European
> version or a US version where the schematic is the same but with
> component value changes due to, for example, 50Hz or 60Hz
Simon,
Hang on to this thought. We are limiting the discussion to the part file
format. The schematic file format discussion will happen after we've nailed
down the part file. I want to keep the focus narrow so we can get this done in
a timely manor.
Wayne
On 12/16/2010 3:50 PM, Simon Rogers
Could the schematic support multiple parts lists?
I'm thinking of the problem supporting different builds say a European
version or a US version where the schematic is the same but with
component value changes due to, for example, 50Hz or 60Hz supply or the
different voltages, regulations etc.
Some aid comes from making the list of lists be just a simple
std::set
where the contained string is a sorted list of space separated pins.
This gets pretty easy then.
Can you then support:
base class:
(pin_merge A B)
derived class:
(pin_merge B A C D)
The remaining problem i
On 12/16/2010 12:15 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 10:33 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 12/16/2010 10:22 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2010 08:12 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh
On 12/16/2010 10:33 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 10:22 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 12/16/2010 08:12 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrot
On 12/16/2010 10:22 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 08:12 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>>> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wro
On 12/16/2010 08:12 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> When placing components such as p
On 12/16/2010 08:12 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> When placing components such as p
>> It does need a way of telling the schematic capture how to choose a
>> look for a component. However, I think the functionality is allowed
>> for in the current spec already. The different versions can be
>> alternatives, then it is down to the GUI design to make these
>> alternatives easy to se
On 16 December 2010 14:09, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>
>> Brian,
>>
>> Even with the current software, try adding pins to your footprint that share
>> the same
>> pin
>
> pad
>> name. I believe the netlist will know then that these pins
>
> pads
>> are all equivalent and
>> are mapped to the very
On 12/16/2010 7:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>>>
>>>
When placing components such as passives (mainly R's and C's) you come
across the c
> Brian,
>
> Even with the current software, try adding pins to your footprint that share
> the same
> pin
pad
> name. I believe the netlist will know then that these pins
pads
> are all equivalent and
> are mapped to the very one and the same schematic pin. I remember doing
> this, so I
>
On 12/16/2010 06:18 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>>>
>>>
When placing components such as passives (mainly R's and C's) you come
across the
> The only thing not covered for me then would be one schematic pin to
> many footprint pins support. I can't see a nice way of doing that yet.
Brian,
Even with the current software, try adding pins to your footprint that share
the same
pin name. I believe the netlist will know then that thes
On 16 December 2010 02:31, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When placing components such as passives (mainly R's and C's) you come
>>> across the common problem that you draw the symbol either horizonta
On 12/15/2010 9:19 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>
>
>> When placing components such as passives (mainly R's and C's) you come
>> across the common problem that you draw the symbol either horizontally
>> or vertically. When you place the component it co
On 12/15/2010 8:17 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 06:37 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> It will also require some diligence on the
>> user's part but I would rather not limit pin swaps to electrically
>> equivalent pins.
>
> I understand not wanting to tie someones hands - but I'm not sure
On 12/15/2010 07:30 PM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
When placing components such as passives (mainly R's and C's) you come
across the common problem that you draw the symbol either horizontally
or vertically. When you place the component it could be in one of four
orientations, but generally it's e
On 14 December 2010 14:39, 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 librar
On 12/15/2010 7:04 PM, Karl Schmidt wrote:
> Pin /gate swap:
>
> I found a document that lists the PADSPCB ASCII format which gives
> insight into how someone else did some swapping -
>
> http://www.smart.net/~pstech/FN2PADS/plog_ascii50.pdf
Karl,
Thanks for the link. Interestingly, the PADSPC
Pin /gate swap:
I found a document that lists the PADSPCB ASCII format which gives insight into how someone else did
some swapping -
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/FN2PADS/plog_ascii50.pdf
You can look at the section called: Part Type Definition
This specification seems to not have changed muc
On 12/15/2010 1:20 PM, Simon Rogers wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Firstly thank you all for the amount of work and effort you have put into
> this.
> I have recently started to use Kicad and found it a very good tool.
>
> I had a look through the spec last night and followed the thread below with
> intere
On 12/15/2010 01:41 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 2:21 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>>> I didn't use pin_swap in an example because a 7400 is so simple you
>>> typically
>>> wouldn't need to swap any pins. I see pin swapping being useful on
>>> component
>>> with a lot of reconfigurab
On 12/15/2010 2:21 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>
>> I didn't use pin_swap in an example because a 7400 is so simple you typically
>> wouldn't need to swap any pins. I see pin swapping being useful on component
>> with a lot of reconfigurable pins (think micro-controllers or gate arrays).
>> The pr
> I didn't use pin_swap in an example because a 7400 is so simple you typically
> wouldn't need to swap any pins. I see pin swapping being useful on component
> with a lot of reconfigurable pins (think micro-controllers or gate arrays).
> The primary usage pattern I see with pin swapping is say I
>> Since the parts list is the origin of the BOM, we may need to have 4) also,
>> other wise
>> folks will go to buy incomplete parts and get all confused. :)
>>
>> Worse yet, they may come back and ask us where to get those parts.
> It's really difficult to find a good supplier for arcs, rectan
On 12/15/2010 11:39 AM, Vesa Solonen wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>
>> On 12/15/2010 7:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>
>>> 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"
Hello,
Firstly thank you all for the amount of work and effort you have put
into this. I have recently started to use Kicad and found it a very good
tool.
I had a look through the spec last night and followed the thread below
with interest. I'm looking forward to the new lib system as I've f
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 12/15/2010 7:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
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
in
On 15 December 2010 14:41, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 7:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>> On 14 December 2010 22:49, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> I made some ,inor changes to clarify inherited vs base part and changed
>>> LPID names reflect local naming convention as suggested by Dick.
On 12/15/2010 9:51 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 08:46 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 08:35 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2010 8:49 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
On 12/15/2010 06:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 14 December 2010 22:49, Wayne Stambaugh w
On 15 December 2010 13:49, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 06:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>> On 14 December 2010 22:49, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> I made some ,inor changes to clarify inherited vs base part and changed
>>> LPID names reflect local naming convention as suggested by Dick.
On 12/15/2010 08:46 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 08:35 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 8:49 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>>> On 12/15/2010 06:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
On 14 December 2010 22:49, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> I made some ,inor changes to clarify inh
On 12/15/2010 08:35 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 8:49 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 12/15/2010 06:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>>> On 14 December 2010 22:49, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
I made some ,inor changes to clarify inherited vs base part and changed
LPID names refle
On 12/15/2010 7:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 14 December 2010 22:49, Wayne Stambaugh 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
On 12/15/2010 8:49 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 06:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>> On 14 December 2010 22:49, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> I made some ,inor changes to clarify inherited vs base part and changed
>>> LPID names reflect local naming convention as suggested by Dick.
>>>
On 12/15/2010 06:19 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
> On 14 December 2010 22:49, Wayne Stambaugh 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 Stambaug
On 14 December 2010 22:49, Wayne Stambaugh 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 you
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
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 ma
51 matches
Mail list logo
