At 07:49 PM 9/6/2010, you wrote:
> I like the idea of using geometric shapes at the lowest level, but for > most PCBs this is *way* too low-level to be efficient. We need some > way of arbitrarily grouping shapes, grouping groups, etc, and creating > some sort of macro/library/callout for those groups, so that we don't > end up (for example) redefining a pad stack for every one of hundreds > of pins. > Several times now in this thread I keep thinking that the language Forth is being described. 'Words' built up on previously defined 'words'...
I have often thought that I would prefer to write an HDL that works like Forth. If used in this way, it becomes a bit Lisp like in that the data and program would need to become one and the same. The Forth that describes the design would be executed to "create" the design in memory or to be output as a set of Gerber files. But to do things like DRC, you would need to analyze either the image in memory or the design source itself as data.
If I find some time, a lot of time, I may work on that at some point. But there are many other projects on the list ahead of that one.
Rick
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user