X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QQ5jdh2pzOeMR5ne66QAJMcSmhkGt0Bt2wgC0fWehIc=; b=lz18mZd66TGLbi+F98raJZvf4uHKcKRtldzejFJmHitkw+9rr8Cce0MkB8cAi1qn+t gx4oHp3+LmL7GmkTUqCubX8TCgYhif4I1Oy3r4YqSAiKVlqLWnR1iNA2l0QEwXY56Rcf p3edwEMUaVKHef95Pr512epa1ea6AOSKom02+SG0IRpZYOMqawCHRuBqHcxYBsif5p2x R5rMPLoOOUlWJqO8r9vEcorja/KXbrrDFU4jGmZYL53vAHhHvrBmjxkcIlW1/XtvcJFK JTkCL8bnePZg791HrCdkbtIJY7PBrJzwT4CEAbhsecSTUTC8eUpyEaUWCSJUE2rhrMjv ocAQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.54.132 with SMTP id j4mr25883306lbp.84.1440514310522; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:51:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <55DC78F8.1010105@iae.nl> References: <6B8DDCCF-0E84-43DC-94A3-89CE0E56F0ED AT noqsi DOT com> <201508242052 DOT 28189 DOT ad252 AT freeelectron DOT net> <3766120C-93DD-454D-B2FA-7C79B78DC86C AT noqsi DOT com> <8DC5050C-49D2-49AD-94B0-A1FC857178E5 AT noqsi DOT com> <55DC6491 DOT 8030607 AT iae DOT nl> <3FA132D6-A8D9-47C8-8D37-E1962EF4098B AT noqsi DOT com> <55DC78F8 DOT 1010105 AT iae DOT nl> Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 10:51:49 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Re: off-topic: daydreaming about modularization From: "Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id t7PEpwFe025366 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 Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:17 AM, myken wrote: > On 25/08/15 15:18, John Doty wrote: > > Isn't the whole idea in this thread "let's make gschem/pcb more accessible”? > > Yes, but the answer looks *completely* different depending on whether you’re > coming from a pcb (integrated tool) or geda-gaf (toolkit) perspective. > > > It must be my lack of understanding the English language but I don't think > there is anyone on this list disputing the power, flexibility, simplicity > and usability of the geda-gaf (gschem) toolkit. Well I don't. > If I understand what I have read there is no one that wants to restrict the > functionality of gschem. > If anything I guess there is a bigger change that pcb will move towards > gschem (geda) then the other way around. The PCB developers are the current majority. > All people try to do is find a way to make the combination more accessible. > I don't mind adding the restriction "looking from the geda-gaf perspective", > if that makes us move forward. gschem needs a more viable plugin interface so that people can implement their desired gschem and pcb relationship with out subjecting the rest of us too it. > Cheers, Robert. -- Home http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ Work http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/