X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 06:25:39 +0100 (CET)
X-X-Sender: igor2 AT igor2priv
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Debug: to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From: gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject: Re: gEDA and it's future with Scheme & Guile was Re: [geda-user]
 Project leadership
In-Reply-To: <978615B0-F33E-4B70-88C2-DC2D05E9C62A@noqsi.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1512310559330.9035@igor2priv>
References: <CAM2RGhS4L-ch6FEcLtdSt0vA0BdQZvq+AuFDP+9ea7Ftd=AALg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <8444F816-17CE-4A56-A982-4A60DEDA72B8 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300544550 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <A06FE370-5416-41F5-BBAA-BCF0D975DDD3 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300635240 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv>
 <2297464D-0109-4CA8-98D5-AC33BD0B02C5 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300723150 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <73273554-3E38-4F1F-9423-F731753B41D8 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300817590 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <41F5814C-CBF1-4F51-8CFA-F9A2F56EC2EF AT noqsi DOT com>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512300858260 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <306C32FA-255A-4B1E-8B00-BD21D7C37F67 AT noqsi DOT com> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512310459310 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <978615B0-F33E-4B70-88C2-DC2D05E9C62A AT noqsi DOT com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk



On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:

>
> On Dec 30, 2015, at 9:01 PM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 30, 2015, at 1:03 AM, gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, John Doty wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Grep is your friend. The textutils can do 10,000 things with .sch files. No GUI tool will ever be able to do all, or even most of them.
>>>>
>>>> So please show me the grep command line that does this RELIABLY. Net segment connections included. net attributes included. Even in non-embedded symbols. Multi sheet designs, hierarchic or not, included.
>>>
>>> It?s a quick heuristic. Speed is important for tracking down such things, perfection is not. Reliability is more the domain of DRC, which definitely needs work, and I?ve been working on it.
>>
>> Friedly reminder: I'm still waiting for the answer here: either a grep commandline that really does the job or a conclusion that it is not possible.
>>
>
> It does the job by my pragmatic standards. I?m interested in getting designs done, not in splitting hairs. I don?t suppose anything would satisfy you. But I?m *extremely* happy with the actual productivity of the toolkit.


Ok, so there's an actual problem I face from time to time: after 
prototyping I figure a specific connection should not be made.  This means 
I need to go back and change the design. First step, find out where the 
connection is made.

The toolkit doesn't have a feature for this. Grep doesn't help. I have a 
partial solution in C and Vladimir showed another partial solution in 
scheme. It seems there's no easy way to make a solution that really 
covers all practical cases (cases that I actually do have as an user).

Your solution is: first state that grep solves it, but when it 
turns out it doesn't, classify the problem as splitting hair.

No personal offense meant, but if such a simple thing is this hard to do 
with geda, there must be some desing problem in the foundation. I also 
think this kind of unfruitful flame does keep us back from discussing such 
design questions in gschem. This is exactly what I meant when I said 
earlier that some people just swamp any attempt to even discuss bugfixes 
and improvements in geda.

Again no offense, but I honestly do believe to progress positively, we 
first need to reolve some issues, for which the first step is naming the 
issues. One of these issues: if someone brings up an uncomfortable 
quesiton (e.g. where geda seems to fail), some people convert it 
immediately into an abstrack "toolkit vs. integrated" flame, while others 
convert it into a "C vs scheme" flame (even if I explicitly said there, 
more than once that the question is NOT about programming languages). 
After the 3rd mail, the original question is totally lost and topic 
converted to one or more of the usual flame wars. This how we can not talk 
about anything else but toolkits and scheme.

This is why I originally tried to resist entering these threads. And this 
is why I give up on this and will ignore geda/gschem related posts on the 
list.

On the side note, I think it'd be also really really useful to make a 
representative poll among the actual userbase about these things: whether 
they'd find a

  "search for connection", "search for network by name"

less important than

  "more c<->scheme conversion" (whichever direction you happen to prefer) 
and "toolkitness" questions.

Kind regards,

Igor2