On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 14:18 +0100, Árpád Magosányi wrote: > 2009/1/17 Peter Clifton <[email protected]>:
> And you will have to reinvent the wheel for each primitives you want to > provide. > While the config is small, then the whole thing does not worth the > effort of changing configuration architecture. When it becomes > complicated, every new primitive will be another effort spent on an > unimportant thing instead of real enhancement of the software itself. I think you're wrong here, since for every thing which is configurable.. there is already custom code. It makes absolutely no difference if I parse a name = value, or execute a method, "name (value)" which is how gschem's configs currently work. Lets agree to disagree on this one. If you like, you can come back and say "I told you so" in the unlikely case there is a problem with implementing this. Since you (nor anyone else) has come up with any use-case or reason as to why you want / need executable configs (as a user), I think you should leave the implementation details up to those who would be doing it. I really believe this is easier to implement than you're making out. -- Peter Clifton Electrical Engineering Division, Engineering Department, University of Cambridge, 9, JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0FA Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!) _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
