Re: gEDA-dev: Clarity or Sanity?

[al davis <ad136@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday 10 June 2007, Dan McMahill wrote:
> I mostly agree.  I really dislike the idea of putting model
> includes and analysis commands or other simulator setup
> things in a schematic.  The only place I don't completely
> agree is where you have an element which is really only
> supported in a particular simulator but that would typically
> be in a test bench schematic anyway.

In Spice, that's what "subckt" is for.

All symbols should generate something in a netlist.  If nothing 
else fits, make it a "subckt" call.



_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev