Re: gEDA-user: Schematic Level DRC DIscussion

[Steve Meier <smeier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually the guile api is the thing I am working on for my
derivative/fork of geda. I am trying to move the basic file io from
being c code to it being guile scripts. The intent being to make it easy
to convert schematics and symbols between geda and other tools. As I am
doing this I am trying to document the api.

As most of my last years efforts into geda has been at the library level
and netlisting I have put in some level of error checking into my
library but I am starting to contemplate the drc requirements as well.

Steve Meier


On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 17:50 -0800, Dave N6NZ wrote:
> Steve Meier wrote:
> > One could argue that that is why we have guile scripts. If you have a
> > reasonable api access to the libgeda structures you should be able ask
> > complicated questions about the completness of a design.
> 
> OK, so I'll admit not having looked deeply into the capabilities of the 
> guile api access to libgeda.  Seems like good infrastructure.  But guile 
> is not a very approachable language for a rule author.  A language that 
> compiles rules into a guile script makes some sense. I think it's key 
> that the rule language be expressive in the problem domain.
> 
> -dave
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing 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