X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 (debian 1:2.8.0~rc1-2) with nmh-1.5
X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: repl
X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: inbox
From: karl AT aspodata DOT se
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] should we broaden scope of libgeda
In-reply-to: <CAMvDHVB1jRzDJ_sJnpBwT-YEDSphiLLVVsDYW+jKW0NNKTq2dA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160102091556 DOT BBC6D809D79B AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <CAJXU7q_Zwyfpcb4g00QCFNTjQ9Le2Tm8WjKz3CKMnNXb7gMceg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20160102131252 DOT F383A809D79A AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <CAMvDHVCi5wR78jybhOEG0EmKyqWVpeaoYFuyWkWSrtkxF7kXQw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20160121144142 DOT 2703D81053E4 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <20160121161958 DOT GB4788 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <20160121174016 DOT E995881053E3 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <20160121184048 DOT GD4788 AT localhost DOT localdomain> <20160121193929 DOT 11E5881053E4 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <CAMvDHVB1jRzDJ_sJnpBwT-YEDSphiLLVVsDYW+jKW0NNKTq2dA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
   message dated "Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:24:03 +0300."
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Message-Id: <20160122110632.D67C281053E3@turkos.aspodata.se>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 12:06:32 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
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

Vladimir:
> On 1/21/16, karl AT aspodata DOT se <karl AT aspodata DOT se> wrote:
> ...
> > Well, he had 3 objections,
> >  1 regexp (which I fixed),
> >  2 scheme (I didn't know scheme well enought, so I couldn't fix that)
> >  3 something about "precedence ordering" which I didn't understand,
> >    I asked about it but he didn't explain it
> 
> IMO, 3 is the consequence of non-2. It is much more easy for
> mere gEDA user to change order of looking through the directories
> in rc-files (which are Scheme code) rather than in C code.

a, I asked about 3 in

   http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/May-2011/msg00646.html

   and provided a way to sort the list.

b, And I still don't understand why libgeda adds component-libs in reverse 
   order of appearance in rc file. If ordering is important, order in 
   sym-browser should be the same as order in rc file

c, It cannot be that difficult to provide a way to change order "after 
   the fact" so to say

> We should make things simpler for users, right?

Simple and better means differnt things in different contexts.
I think the goal should be
. respect the local users way of working
. don't place obstacles in his/her way
and such.

> OTOH, I don't think that even glib is simpler than guile or less
> error-prone. However, it also depends on what you already know.

Don't know much about glib, except they have the now redundant types 
gint etc. instead of stdint.h, and that when malloc fails they abort().
abort() makes glib off limits for daemon developments and therefore I
haven't worked with it.

How does guile handle out of mem. condition ?

Regards,
/Karl Hammar

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57