> If we tagged individual objects with rules it would be difficult to edit > rules in a systemetic way. So I don't think that's a good way to go.
No, we tag objects with rule *names*. Hopefully rules can nest, so you can have meta-rules like "signal-line-rule" or "12vac rule". Without a tag, you'd get synthetic tags like "line-rule" or "pin-rule". > Speed might be a problem, but again, Lisp would be a huge boon to this, > if only because of the immense amount of AI-related stuff out there. gschem uses a lot of lisp (in the guise of Guile). No thanks. Despite PCBs being object oriented, they're not *data* oriented like Lisp is. > C++ would be a definite improvement. However, it's a scary-huge language No, it's not. It has much more *capability* than C but you don't *have* to use it all. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
