gEDA-dev: New diagram (attempt at UML)
John Doty
jpd at wispertel.net
Tue Apr 10 20:59:09 EDT 2007
On Apr 10, 2007, at 6:28 PM, al davis wrote:
>
>> On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Steve Meier wrote:
>>> The PCB and pads netlist formats are flat formats. Is these
>>> a netlist format that you would recommend that is
>>> hierarchical?
>>
>>> On Tuesday 10 April 2007 17:13, John Doty wrote:
>> SPICE.
>
> If the year is 1975, I would agree with you.
>
> If the year is 1990, I would accept that as an
> ultra-conservative statement. Those in the know were already
> pushing to move on.
>
> For today: Verilog-AMS or VHDL-AMS.
When my customers want that, I'll go that way. I might look into it,
and nudge them a little. You have me interested. But on my last (and
first) IC design, the deliverable in the contract was a SPICE netlist.
In any case, can't these new formats handle hierarchy? I would think
it preferable to let the simulator do the expansion, not the
netlister. Am I missing something?
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
jpd at noqsi.com
More information about the geda-dev
mailing list