[ibis-macro] Re: Questions on API proposal
- From: "Walter Katz" <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <michael.mirmak@xxxxxxxxx>, <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:25:22 -0400
Questions on API proposalMike,
This is an interesting point. In the current scheme multiple pins can point
to a single [Model], and the [Algorithmic Model] section only applies to
that [Model].
If we need to support your idea, then we would need to do something like the
following:
[Model] rx_one
algorithmic_model rx_generic
[Model] rx_two
algorithmic_model rx_generic
[Model] rx_three
algorithmic_model rx_special
[algorithmic model] rx_generic
...
[end algorithmic model]
[algorithmic model] rx_special
...
[end algorithmic model]
And we can extend your idea by allowing the algorithmic model to be inside a
"library" IBIS file e.g.:
algorithmic_model my_algol.ibs rx_special
We do not do this for [External Model]. Has this been a problem using
External Models?
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 3:10 AM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Questions on API proposal
Looking at the API proposal text, I have two implementation questions:
1) Is [Algorithmic Model] below the level of [Model] in the keyword
hierarchy? In other words, can an [Algorithmic Model] only be used with the
particular [Model] that contains its definition?
I can imagine circumstances where I might want a single [Algorithmic
Model] definition to be used independently with several different analog
[Model]s (e.g., where the same engine design is used separately to process
data but for two different interfaces). Under the current definition, I
would have to re-define the [Algorithmic Model] several times, even if
identical, for individual [Model]s, even if they are associated under [Model
Selector] with a single pin.
2) On a related note, does [Algorithmic Model] not accept a text string
argument as an identifier? Again this implies that defining an [Algorithmic
Model] is explicit under [Model] but instantiating it is implicit through
the [Pin] list.
This effectively means that each [Algorithmic Model] is only associated
with a single [Model] and therefore a single [Pin]. I can imagine -- and
might be interested in creating -- cases where a block of algorithmic code
processes the results of data involving multiple analog buffers associated
with multiple pins. In this syntax, I have no way of defining this
association, at least not through [Pin], [Model] or any argument to
[Algorithmic Model]. The [Circuit Call] keyword does allow me, by contrast,
to associate a single block of code with multiple pins.
Am I missing something?
- MM
Other related posts:
