Re: gEDA-user: Schematic Level DRC DIscussion

[Dave N6NZ <n6nz@xxxxxxxx>]

Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:47:51 -0800, Dave N6NZ wrote:
<snip>
> Yesss!
I'll take that as general agreement.

> I am strongly in favor of such design checks for both, schematic and 
> layout. Hard coded rules are better than nothing, but necessarily fail to 
> fit important cases. The language to describe rules should be as flexible 
> as possible, allow for exceptions and generally apply all kinds of logic. 
> Sounds like prolog to me...
Ummmm..... once upon I time I was pretty fluent with Prolog.  I still 
have a knee-jerk aversion to the language outside of toy problems.  I 
regard Prolog as a "bicycle for the mind" -- better suited to enhancing 
fitness than as practical transportation.  Still, Prolog does express 
rules naturally.  I'm thinking we would want something that is rule 
oriented, but specifically designed for the problem domain.

-dave





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