On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Jason wrote: > John Doty wrote: > [huge snip] >> I have no objection to wrappers. What I object to is the constant >> demand to fix perceived problems by violating the fairly clean, >> modular nature of the kit. Rather, we need to make things *more* >> modular (e.g. get the hardwired behavior out of the gnetlist front >> end). >> > > Would having a footprint browser popup in gschem when the user > tries to > add a footprint attribute violate the modular nature of the kit?
Unless you can provide an interface that would make this work with all of the ~10 PCB layout programs gEDA can currently operate with, and a reasonably easy path to make it work in the future with others, I would say that violates modularity. > > As an experience linux user, I appreciate the command-line power of > gaf. > As a new gEDA user trying to get it done quickly, switching from the > gschem gui to the cli grepping around got old. > > I like the fact that there is a dropdown of common attribute names > (right-click a symbol, edit), and that you can type in your own if you > like. Doing something similar in the Value box seems reasonable. Or, > perhaps a "browse footprints" button below the Value box (only visible > when attribute is footprint). Which tool's footprints do you wish to browse through? > > On another note, how much resistance would there be to using regex > (libpcre is already in there) when searching of footprint names? This > would be in both pcb, Remember, pcb is not part of gEDA, and is only one of many possible layout programs gEDA can use. > and the hypothetical gschem footprint browser. Regex are good. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [email protected] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
