Hi All, [snip]Peter Clifton wrote: >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.
I don't think it is upto the implementer to decide what he/she wants, it us upto the Ales and other key developers decision. What if the implementer has never used any advance EDA tools before, and have absolutely no idea how advance EDA user use their tools to design advance circuit, and insist he/she must do it his/her way, which is way off common sense? If we allow such thing to be implemented without question, it would not do justice for all the developers who worked so hard and for so many years to have made gEDA so flexible as now. I myself do use "executable config", just look at the "Dynamic GTK Gschem Tools menu" package I posted on geda-dev around July-2008. The gEDA config is fine now, I do not mind having a wrapper on top of it. But to compleletly eliminate "executable config", I must voice my concern again. Best Regards, Paul Tan -----Original Message----- From: Peter Clifton <[email protected]> To: gEDA user mailing list <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 8:09 am Subject: Re: gEDA-user: [RFC 1/6] Non-Turing-complete configuration files. =0 D 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 maili ng list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
