X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
From:	Christian Riggenbach <criggenbach AT magahugu DOT ch>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Using Lua to safely read configuration and layout files (program attached)
Date:	Sun, 08 Feb 2015 14:12:58 +0100
Message-ID:	<3635158.z6Jv0Z2n4b@jasum>
User-Agent:	KMail/4.14.4 (Linux/3.18.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.4; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To:	<AEAD8607-94F1-43CB-A339-BF881484BE96@icloud.com>
References:	<CAOFvGD7pJTo8A=MXVbuuXO=++0vGukUyqVfckVtnCi99ziqWJQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20150208003842 DOT 63db8a55 AT jive> <AEAD8607-94F1-43CB-A339-BF881484BE96 AT icloud DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sunday 08 February 2015 12.41:12 you wrote:
> I agree that scripts/expressions would have little use and cause problems in
> general schematics which are modified and saved often, but I can also see
> that it would be very useful for parametric symbols and reusable
> sub-circuits. I wouldn't want to limit the parser/interpreter to preclude
> it - it would be better to define what will and won't be supported by the
> application.

It would be hard to police, but i think that's more of a sledge hammer 
problem: no one should forbid me the possibility to use one, even if it's not 
the best option. And being honest, to have a whole scripting language for 
symbols would be sweet.

> It might be enough simply to say that schematics/symbols can be as dynamic
> as you like, but they will be evaluated once when instantiated and will be
> static from that point on.

+1

Or have some kind of editor in gschem to "escape" scriptlets. You can define 
accessors for lua objects, so you can parametricate quite simply without 
disturbing the API.

-- 
mit freundlichem Gruss

Christian Riggenbach

- Raw text -