Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 6
  • Subscribers 142
  • Views 15304
  • Members are here 0
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Toggle Instances Selectable With One Bindkey

buttonGuy

Hello,

I am new to skill and my problem is as follows: in Layout, there is an Objects palette that contains the visible & selectable options for Shapes, Instances, Fluid Guardring, Mosaic, Pins, Vias, etc. I want to be able to toggle the Selectable checkbox of the “Instances” with the use of a single bindkey. Currently, I have two bind keys set to make it selectable and not selectable:

z bindkey: _pteHiObjectSetSelectability(dwindow(‘pteObjectPalette2) “Instances” nil)·

Shift+z bindkey: _pteHiObjectSetSelectability(dwindow(‘pteObjectPalette2) “Instances” t)

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

 Thanks!

Parents
  • Andrew Beckett

    Ted,

    I tend to use the if() function without the then and else clauses, because it's more the LISP way. Also in ancient history (before the byte code compiler, which was introduced about 21 years ago, so I can probably move on now), it was noticeably less efficient - nowadays it makes no difference.

    It's very compact to treat it like the C ternary operator, particularly when you're using the return value of the if() - so you can do:

    (setq result (if (equal input 23) "hello" "world"))

    Which is like the C result=(input==23?"hello":"world"). 

    I can see your point that if you only had a then clause, and started with:

    if(someCondition
      doSomething
    )

    and then changed it to:

    if(someCondition
      doSomething
      doSomethingMore
    )

    then you might be confused as to why doSomethingMore wasn't happening. However, you should have used when() in this case. If you had:

    if(someCondition
      doSomething
      otherWiseDoThis
    )

    and then added another statement at the end, it doesn't execute them as the true clause - it gives an error:

    > if(t println(1) println(2) println(3))
    *Error* if: too many arguments (missing then?) - (t println(1) println(2) println(3))

    Andrew.

Reply
  • Andrew Beckett

    Ted,

    I tend to use the if() function without the then and else clauses, because it's more the LISP way. Also in ancient history (before the byte code compiler, which was introduced about 21 years ago, so I can probably move on now), it was noticeably less efficient - nowadays it makes no difference.

    It's very compact to treat it like the C ternary operator, particularly when you're using the return value of the if() - so you can do:

    (setq result (if (equal input 23) "hello" "world"))

    Which is like the C result=(input==23?"hello":"world"). 

    I can see your point that if you only had a then clause, and started with:

    if(someCondition
      doSomething
    )

    and then changed it to:

    if(someCondition
      doSomething
      doSomethingMore
    )

    then you might be confused as to why doSomethingMore wasn't happening. However, you should have used when() in this case. If you had:

    if(someCondition
      doSomething
      otherWiseDoThis
    )

    and then added another statement at the end, it doesn't execute them as the true clause - it gives an error:

    > if(t println(1) println(2) println(3))
    *Error* if: too many arguments (missing then?) - (t println(1) println(2) println(3))

    Andrew.

Children
No Data

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.