| ID: | 5662 |
| From: | Gabriel Paubert <pa...@iram.es> |
| Date: | Wed, 18 May 2022 09:25:25 +0200 |
| Subject: | Re: [pcb-rnd] RFC: "design" naming convention |
| in-reply-to: | 5661 from rn...@igor2.repo.hu |
| replies: | 5663 from rn...@igor2.repo.hu |
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 08:12:09AM +0200, rnd2@igor2.repo.hu wrote: > Hi all, > > we have a concept that started from pcb-rnd but is part of librnd and > all ringdove apps by now. It's called "design". It means "board" in > pcb-rnd and "sheet" in sch-rnd. So it is always the file that you are > editing at the moment. You see this a lot in the conf system (the "design > role") but it's also part of the API. > > Now I am working on a librnd upgrade for multi-design support (which is > multi-sheet support in sch-rnd, something we need to have in the beta, and > eventually multi-board support in pcb-rnd). Very useful for pcb-rnd, where I often save buffer to a file to reuse by importing into another board (I often have to edit refdeses, or I only transfer the tracks and then put the components at their place). But I digress... > > While at it, I am not sure the word "design" is the best choice. It > may be confusing in some contexts, like the conf system, where you > have system config, user config, project config, design config, etc., > > Maybe something like "document" is better, although that sounds a bit > strange too: for an sch sheet it sounds natural, but a PCB board I > wouldn't call "document". > > The rename is expensive, not mainly in the code, but in the docs, in the > config files, in the head of all users. So I am not dedicated to rename > "design" at all costs, but if someone can come up with something that is > really significantly better, I may go for it. > > Requirements on the new word: > > - needs to fit well on the existing cases we have: sch sheet and pcb file > > - needs to be generic enough that it'd fit to the same concept editing any > other kind of "design file" in a future application > > - needs to be relatively short, easy to remember > > - needs to be conceptually different from all the other terms we > already use in similr contexts > > > If you have any idea on such a word, please share! > What you want is a word that describes the content of what goes into a given top level window, or rather what I'd call its useful or editable part, no? Maybe "entity", I'm not completely satisfied with it, but I've not found anything better. For schematics, "page" or "sheet" are fine, but I dislike them for PCB. I think that "item" is too generic, and "part" is not better. (Maybe I'm biased against "part", because it's what we use at work for a fully specified component, for example a capacitor of a given value, combined with package, voltage, and other application dependent parameters: dielectric type, temperature coefficient, ESR, ESL, SRF and insertion loss for RF models). But maybe a native English speaker should chime in ;) Regards, Gabriel
Reply subtree:
5662 Re: [pcb-rnd] RFC: "design" naming convention from Gabriel Paubert <pa...@iram.es>
5663 Re: [pcb-rnd] RFC: "design" naming convention from rn...@igor2.repo.hu