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