[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: gEDA-user: weird names in PCB part library
> Not at all. I don't really care how they are created as long as they are
> correct and consistent. Consistent is why I like the new format. So
> using a macro language to generate a file of the new format would be
> rather invissible to the pattern's end user.
My $0.02: Steve is right -- the user shouldn't ever be exposed to M4.
My druthers: Only one footprint library, based upon ASCII text
footprint files. This supports everybody:
-- Users who want to draw the footprints by hand can
do so using PCB & then save out the results to a file.
-- Users who want to generate footprints parametrically can do so
using Perl, Python, etc. using stand-alone utilities.
-- Users who love to live in emacs can type in the symbols by hand.
My main point is that making M4 an intrinsic, exposed part of PCB is a
turn-off to gEDA's target audience: board designers. They shouldn't
be expected to know that there is an M4 based footprint lib as
well as a normal, file-based lib. They shouldn't even have to ever