[eispice] Re: Spice Model Converter Experiment

Hi Thomas,

You have a good point, I hadn't thought of that. What if I add all of the same 
parameters to the eispice diode model that are in the spice3f5 diode model? 
eispice will just ignore the parameters it doesn't use, but if in the future 
those features are added the models will already support them. That way we can 
stick with the classes instead of using dictionaries. That model is intended to 
be spice compatible so I don't mind having the exact same parameters, even if 
they aren't all used.

What do you think? I can make that change and release a new version on the 
weekend if you'd like. Or if you still prefer dictionaries I'd be happy with 
that too.

Cheers,
Charles

Thomas Traber wrote:
> Hi Charles.
> 
>> On second thought I think your idea is better (using diode classes as 
>> opposed to 
>> dictionaries). It lines up much better with the rest of the eispice syntax, 
>> and 
>> will result in cleaner, easier to read code.
> 
> I just wanted to agree with you that it is better to have
> dictionaries. :-)
> 
> One advantage of dictionaries:
> All parameters in the model can be converted without testing whether
> eispice (in the current version) accepts it.
> 
> But, maybe it is better to rewrite the diode model using **kwargs
> instead of explicitly named parameters?
> 
> Ciao,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the eispice list send an email to:
> eispice-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the eispice list send an email to:
eispice-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field

Other related posts: