# 0hmx - @Seve @Rishabh https://docs.tscircuit.co...

Channel: #contributor
Source: https://discord.com/channels/1233487248129921135/1532252174157877249
Started: 2026-07-30T05:03:06.738000+00:00
Last activity: 2026-07-30T14:59:16.503000+00:00

## 0hmx — 2026-07-30T05:03:06.188000+00:00

<@757706909351411845> <@809856037376491570> https://docs.tscircuit.com/elements/group

is groups still useful ? or are they depricated in favour of sub circuits ? I asked my ai to use sub circuits and it switch to groups when some trace went missing, i think maybe if we use group we should say its depricated;

## Rishabh — 2026-07-30T05:04:18.226000+00:00

It shouldn't be deprecated for sure

## Rishabh — 2026-07-30T05:06:51.208000+00:00

You can have a circuit were you don't want the <subcircuit /> to be routed separately, but for representation we use a <group /> inside a <board />

## astrimid — 2026-07-30T14:11:18.217000+00:00

Subcircuits do something undersirable by default, like isolating namespace as well as implying port scoping rules. Group allow to opt-in subcircuit behavior, as well as show as schematic box.
There was a proposal to unify schematic presentation: https://github.com/tscircuit/core/issues/1348

Here's a proposal that touch on scoping that could hollow out subcircuit further:
https://github.com/tscircuit/core/issues/2934

Subcircuit or subsystem or schematic section, whatever you call it, only useful conceptually and presentationally.

Group, it appears implies semantic meaning that could actually can influence manufacturing
Attachment: image.png — https://community.tscircuit.com/media/1532390131758268466
Attachment: image.png — https://community.tscircuit.com/media/1532390132190023750
Attachment: image.png — https://community.tscircuit.com/media/1532390132609585394
Attachment: image.png — https://community.tscircuit.com/media/1532390133049983166

## astrimid — 2026-07-30T14:13:49.685000+00:00

Probably there should be separate `<schematicGroup>` (renamed from schematic section) and `<pcbGroup>` (current group), each having their own hierachy logic. And probably an explicit `<namespace` that defines how refdefs behave across namespace boundaries

## astrimid — 2026-07-30T14:14:34.868000+00:00

But nesting would be difficult, so you would need some duplicate instance refs
Attachment: image.png — https://community.tscircuit.com/media/1532390957767458988

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:15:49.443000+00:00

Subcircuits are supposed to have high isolation, groups have low isolation, schematicgroup and pcbgroup yes these make sense but it general i feel like group may have been a bit of a misstep

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:16:14.548000+00:00

Isolation, Spatial and semantic grouping are all different

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:16:50.364000+00:00

schematicgroup is _closer_ to a semantic grouping, but isnt necessarily a semantic group if done for schematic layout purposes

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:17:20.469000+00:00

pcbgroup is imo mostly spatial

## astrimid — 2026-07-30T14:18:05.431000+00:00

We already have this schematicsheet/schematic section instantiation, maybe something like that could separate the representation concern out: some schematic group that could be referenced in schematic without physically changing PCB or moving JSX children out of where they are

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:19:20.982000+00:00

Yea the non-nested instantiation is a good compromise

## astrimid — 2026-07-30T14:23:25.188000+00:00

the use case I'm using `<group>` right now is for moving a group of components on schematic without changing their spatial relationship, or how the ports/netlabels behave. So if subcircuit and group are merged, this use case would need some way to opt-in behaviour like plug-ins: relative coordinates, refdef scoping, port behaviour, pcb concerns.

## astrimid — 2026-07-30T14:24:14.319000+00:00

As I understand subcircuit has behaviour by default I can opt out of. I'd rather have opt-in atoms I can build with.

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:25:45.301000+00:00

Yea ill add some stuff to the spec today but imo just avoid group haha,

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:26:15.964000+00:00

schematicgroup and pcbgroup with optional nesting is probably good

## astrimid — 2026-07-30T14:54:50.664000+00:00

what's the recommended way  for only changing to relative coordinates within a group? subcircuit with some property to disable namespace?

## astrimid — 2026-07-30T14:55:54.132000+00:00

or maybe modifying children from react component?

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:56:11.384000+00:00

No, that would be more of a group thing which again the support isn’t so good


You could use schX offset math but yea no good

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:56:25.280000+00:00

The problem with relative grouping in general is it confuses AI

## astrimid — 2026-07-30T14:57:02.563000+00:00

AI is confused either way, haha

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:57:36.569000+00:00

The other method is using Calc strings

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:57:48.918000+00:00

I think that maybe the least confusing method

## astrimid — 2026-07-30T14:58:07.193000+00:00

I think it's mostly lack of examples and ever changing API

## Seve — 2026-07-30T14:59:16.503000+00:00

Lack of examples, yes. But we don’t have that many breaking changes to the API (generally) the changing API is mostly just new features