To | ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it |
From | "GLAO S. Dezai" <dezai@hotbot.com> |
Date | Thu, 01 Feb 2001 09:59:57 -0800 |
Delivered-To | mailing list ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it |
Mailing-List | contact ng-spice-help@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it; run by ezmlm |
Organization | HotBot Mail (http://mail.hotbot.mailcity.lycos.com:80) |
Reply-To | ng-spice@ieee.ing.uniroma1.it |
-- On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:54:25 Al Davis wrote: >I hereby propose we adopt this "dot" form. > >Comments????? >Any better ideas??? > >al. I think we should not change the spice decks syntax. A lot of libraries and spice files have been written since many years. There is here a real risk to be incompatible with the spice world. It is true that moving toward a dot form will give lot of possiblities for new components. I see two ways: 1) It is possible to write another parser for the dot form o any other langage and introduce a compatibility option For exemple .option DECK=SPICEFORM or .option DECK=LANG2FORM Then the correct parser will be selected according to the option given. We will keep compatibility with traditional spice deck and we open new developement ISSUES (AHDL ,VHDL etc.) 2)The second possibility is the xspice one. The model A is a generic model suitable for anything. Cheers. Glao. HotBot - Search smarter. http://www.hotbot.com