Matthias Wenzel wrote:
Carlos Nieves Ónega wrote:
- Noweb: I don't know anyone who has benefit of using it. If we want
[...]
documentation too. Is anyone still using noweb? who wants to drop noweb?
my full agreement.
I think noweb even keeps dev-newbies from creating patches. I recently
created my 1st patch, but I was doing all changes in .c files, and
"backported" it to noweb to create a propper patch.
Isn't noweb a better way of documenting the code than simple doxygen API
docs?
To be honest I really hate doxygen autogenerated stuff because often
it's easier to look into the code and find out what's going on than to
read some bad API documentation.
- Autosaving when crashing: I know gschem shouldn't crash but, what if
it happens some day?. What about automatically saving the schematics
when crashing? I mean connecting the segfault signal to a function which
saves the unsaved schematics using filenames like
#real_name.sch.crashed#, real_name.sch.crashed, (depending on the
filename chosed for the last point). Gschem should look for these kind
of files when loading an schematic, and let's the user choose if he
wants to load this file instead of the normal one.
good idea! segfault handling can be dangerous, but I guess most of the
times it succeeds, and thus helps the user.
And what about doing it like Vim does?
It saves the buffer into the swap file (.filename.swp) every few seconds
(this could be probably longer) and asks whether to restore it the next
time you edit the file if it finds a swap file which was not deleted by
proper program exit.
This thing saved me a lot of work countless times when my computer
crashed or X died or I had a power failure (segfaults in Vim never
occurred ;]).
IMHO it would be much better than handling only one kind of failure.
Apart from this, there is a danger that after a segfault the schematic
cannot be saved because it's memory representation is inconsistent.
--
Regards,
Jakub Piotr Cłapa
