On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, John Doty<[email protected]> wrote: > > Perhaps not Guile, but we're going to have to keep Scheme around for > a long time, because all those back ends are important. It's not that > there's a lot of code in them, but they embody a great deal of > research into just what each format needs (often the product of > "reverse engineering").
Fair enough. What Scheme implementation will be used? > And in the particular case of spice-sdb, Stuart has produced really > good documentation. Those who want to improve SPICE netlisting would > be well advised to read and understand that first. Thanks for your gnetlist tutorial, BTW. It was an interesting read. Improving backends is easy (well, relatively easy). What's hard is fixing the front-end so that it provides full design information to back-ends (including hierarchy and parameters, of course). I also think that the best way to do it is to implement this functionality in Scheme (so that all front-end data structures are naturally available to back-ends) but it is still OK to have this functionality in a compiled core provided it doesn't hide design information from its back-ends. Regards, -r. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
