[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: gEDA-user: get-package-attribute sometimes returns "?" - ID: 3114991

On Thursday 16 December 2010 20:43:23 clif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Ok so we toss current patch in 3114991.

Done.

> Should I make a new one that
> replaces all the "?" in symbols / blocks with "unknown"?

That sounds like a good idea, actually.

> If spice-sdb should choke on any remaining "?" it runs across, then I
> guess my second patch (3117075) is good to go.

Did you see my e-mail from last Thursday?  I've forwarded it in this e-mail in 
case you missed it. There are a couple of things I wouldn't mind changed, if 
possible.

> It seems that another example of attribute placeholders is the
> footprint=none convention. The zero-length values feature might allow us
> to clean up other special cases as well.

Possibly, yes.

Thanks for your work on this.

                       Peter

-- 
Peter Brett <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi Clif,

Firstly, patch 3114991 (get-package-attribute sometimes returns "?").

Two important things:

a) If there is not actually a text object attached to a part with the value 
"file=?" attribute somewhere, we have a problem.  gnetlist/libgeda really 
shouldn't be manufacturing attributes with the value "?".  A proper fix really 
needs to get to the bottom of why this is happening.

b) The name & behaviour of that C function will be completely changing in the 
next few days, so your patch won't apply (see patch 3071482 -- I am currently 
working with the author to finalise this).

I can't accept this patch in its current form, sorry.  If you don't have time 
to track down where the "?" values are coming from, please file a bug and I'll 
try and figure it out at some point.

Secondly, patch 3117075 (spice-sdb -- Several fixes / Cleanups).

a) Please split whitespace changes into a separate patch which *only* changes 
whitespace.  I personally avoid touching whitespace if possible. ;-)  
Actually, this patch would have been better split into a series of patches, 
each of which does one particular clean-up...

b) Syntax for `define' when defining functions.  Here's something I wrote 
yesterday:

> I would greatly appreciate it if the implicit lambda form of `define' was
> used in all new code, i.e.:
>
>   (define (allsame? x)
>     (null? (delete (car x) (cdr x))))
> 
> This is preferred in new Scheme code because it eliminates a set of braces
> and an additional keyword, while being unambiguous.  Additionally, this
> syntax means that the second s-expression in the definition matches the
> prototype of the function, which aids in documentation.  Finally, the
> implicit `define' form supports docstrings, which although we don't
> currently use, we may well use in the future.

c) `spice-sdb:filter-map'.  I'm not sure I understand why you can't just use 
`filter-map'...?

d) Changes to prototype of `spice-sdb:write-net-names-on-component' seem 
sensible.

e) `get-net-name' modifies its argument.  Looking at the code, it's not clear 
to me why this is actually necessary -- could you explain, please? :-)

Thanks!

                              Peter

-- 
Peter Brett <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


--- End Message ---

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user