[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: gEDA-user: weird names in PCB part library
On Aug 20, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Stuart Brorson wrote:
On THIS point, however, I have to agree. I'm strongly in favor of
the continued use of M4 (or its replacement with another macro
processor or a VERY VERY LIGHTWEIGHT [i.e., not Perl, TCL, or Python]
scripting language) but there clearly needs to be some sort of
high-level user interface to it. And...
Not at all. I don't really care how they are created as long as they
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.
...I agree fully that board designers who don't have the luxury of
also being experienced programmers should NOT have to be exposed to it.
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
Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly
Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller