Re: node_t::map

Hi Al.

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 07:33:44PM -0500, al davis wrote:
> On Saturday 15 December 2012, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> > as it seems, the call
> > _n[i].n_()->set_user_number(_n[j].e_())
> > from DEV::expand collapses the nodes i and j.
> 
> No.
>
> [..]
>
> I think what you want is:
> //============
> _n[i] = _n[j];
> //============

hmmm. not really. if i do this in, say, NET::expand, it will just
connect that net to the same node twice (does it?)

> This is old code, originally written in "C", still really in 
> "C".
> 
> Think of node_t as a pointer, or like "NODE*".  node_t should 
> really be a NODE::iterator.

in a way, i did. a node_t is a "pointer" to the NODE (*n_()), which i
tried to collapse. (don't worry, it doesn't yet work the way i hoped ;)

> A "NODE" is the actual node.  It stores info, and exists once 
> for each, all in the _nstat array.
> 
> Think of that "user_number" as an un-pointer, kind of like the 
> "&" takes the address.

as it seems that is consistant with "user_number is the pointer to the
node/NODE/..  that actually should be used in the end".

> Making the whole _nstat array all LOGIC_NODE is really wasteful.
> and a throwback to the old C code.  It is wasteful in the sense
> that analog only nodes carry digital baggage and digital only
> nodes carry analog baggage, just in case it is discovered later
> that you really need a mixed node.  A side benefit of this is
> that you can put analog probes on a digital node or digital
> probes on an analog node, and get an answer.

a bit off topic:
hmm, currently node_t holds int _m to point to the node voltage,
probably another int should point to the logic value? 
i don't see node_t replaced by NODE::iterators. woudnt that move NODE*
magic like polymorphism and pointer calculation to simulation time?
(havent tried, just a thought)

regards
felix