Re: gEDA-user: [RFC 1/6] Non-Turing-complete configuration files.

[Paul Tan <pt75234@xxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

[snip]Peter Clifton wrote:
>Since you (nor anyone else) has come up with any use-case or reason as
>to why you want / need executable configs (as a user), I think you
>should leave the implementation details up to those who would be doing
>it. I really believe this is easier to implement than you're making 
out.


I don't think it is upto the implementer to decide what he/she
wants, it us upto the Ales and other key developers decision.
What if the implementer has never used any advance EDA tools
before, and have absolutely no idea how advance EDA user use
their tools to design advance circuit, and insist he/she must
do it his/her way, which is way off common sense?  If we allow
such thing to be implemented without question, it would not
do justice for all the developers who worked so hard and for
so many years to have made gEDA so flexible as now.

I myself do use "executable config", just look at the
"Dynamic GTK Gschem Tools menu" package I posted on geda-dev
around July-2008.

The gEDA config is fine now, I do not mind having a wrapper
on top of it. But to compleletly eliminate "executable config",
I must voice my concern again.

Best Regards,
Paul Tan



-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gEDA user mailing list <geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 8:09 am
Subject: Re: gEDA-user: [RFC 1/6] Non-Turing-complete configuration 
files.

=0
D

On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 14:18 +0100, Árpád Magosányi wrote:
> 2009/1/17 Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx>:

> And you will have to reinvent the wheel for each primitives you want 
to
provide.
> While the config is small, then the whole thing does not worth the
> effort of changing configuration architecture. When it becomes
> complicated, every new primitive will be another effort spent on an
> unimportant thing instead of real enhancement of the software itself.

I think you're wrong here, since for every thing which is configurable..
there is already custom code. It makes absolutely no difference if I
parse a name = value, or execute a method, "name (value)" which is how
gschem's configs currently work.

Lets agree to disagree on this one. If you like, you can come back and
say "I told you so" in the unlikely case there is a problem with
implementing this.


Since you (nor anyone else) has come up with any use-case or reason as
to why you want / need executable configs (as a user), I think you
should leave the implementation details up to those who would be doing
it. I really believe this is easier to implement than you're making out.

--
Peter Clifton

Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9, JJ Thomson Avenue,
Cambridge
CB3 0FA

Tel: +44 (0)7729 980173 - (No signal in the lab!)



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



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