RE: [ng-spice-devel] An Historical note on spice netlist format


To "'ng-spice-devel@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it'" <ng-spice-devel@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it>
From Paolo Nenzi <pnenzi@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it>
Date Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:03:45 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To mailing list ng-spice-devel@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it
In-Reply-To <CF654D964573D311A1CA0090278A36FF4CBD7F@EDIN_EXM1 >
Mailing-List contact ng-spice-devel-help@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it; run by ezmlm
Reply-To ng-spice-devel@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Gillespie, Alan wrote:

> 
> > 
> > Can you explain better, what do you mean for a submodel ?
> > 
> 
> As an example, some bipolar processes have an option for
> an extra diffusion in the collector of an npn which
> dramatically reduces the collector resistance. This
> diffusion will usually have no significant effect on
> any other device parameters, except it makes for a slighty
> larger collector area.


Yeah, I like the idea! I like it very much! 

Do you think at a structure like this:

device +-> model +-> submodel +-> list of instances
       |         |            
       |         +-> submodel +-> list of instances
       |

or like this:


device +-> model +-> instance with submodel


> Not when we start to allow expressions for values. PSPICE surrounds
> all expressions with {} which might be necessary. I'd prefer to allow
> expressions wherever you want them without the need for special
> delimiters (gobbledigook :-), but I've seen that cause confusion for
> some simulators. That's one of the reasons I say we need a language
> expert to define a good general unambiguous syntax that doesn't involve
> too much gobbledigook.

Ok, go for no ulabeled parameters. Language expert, yes , I agree, what
about a call for expert ?

Cheers,
Paolo


Partial thread listing: