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; bh=rBRze9VEd7EbUg4S1D51M/C3y6w7Q+K8TUnxnAQA9j0=; b=Hej88Snd21ZmdxY1mMJfw3rdqHwFKMpTVH4k9ckec7swxPTt17QOJaLIAyoCPG/MSA SHds0Yx1ObX+N6S7m707Fnzjdxcvob+SWOpcd19ByMmtUaDQ/x7/dsV6esZPpaEZBW6t j9yn/Z0wLEnxKna+O08Ev33S+sqImWQKYEXAT2/4+aq19T+yhrdHqdrLn9wac/y3lszN g4DTmvXUPqdqfp5GNiy3hFXphZNNNOM5e+l9Qk9ctSQqh/yo+IKsrur2S/V+7G6/W03a A+yO9ECMcVN9FrcuGuSAyMOKQ8/Fr3K+0eNPjMdPjGIpN3e+QGyHY+0GtyNRL7AOkmsN mB+g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.104.200 with SMTP id gg8mr19710089wjb.144.1442160975032; Sun, 13 Sep 2015 09:16:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150913004237.6f386c69@jive.levalinux.org> References: <201509120239 DOT t8C2dAiO026962 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201509122223 DOT t8CMNhaZ024482 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <20150913004237 DOT 6f386c69 AT jive DOT levalinux DOT org> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2015 08:16:14 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] shortest way towards parsing .pcb files outside pcb From: "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin 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 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 Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Lev (leventelist AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 18:23:43 -0400 > DJ Delorie wrote: > >> Another option here is to switch to a file format that's already >> supported by lots of other languages, like XML or YAML. Then the >> remaining work breaks down into: >> >> * Deciding on a schema for the data >> >> * converting pcb to read/write that schema >> >> Scripts wouldn't *need* to use pcb's parser, they could use any old >> parser library, since the scripts already know what the parts of the >> schema they're interested in look like. Read file, fiddle with the >> parts you know, write file leaving everything else intact. > > Yes! Exactly my dream! Yes this would be better. I think YAML is a really good choice. Its more human-readable and more expressive than JSON and there's an interface for every language. I would start with a 1-1 mapping to the existing format, to avoid changing multiple things at once and make backward compatibility easy to maintain. With this approach, deciding on a schema would really just mean picking names for any unnamed fields that we decide should have names. To the people who want a binary database format: I can see the attractions. Having the fastest possible parser could be a significant advantage in some situations. However, I think it's safe to say it will be a show-stopper for existing power users not well-versed in SQL. This is something I would be happy to start working on if there's any sort of consensus.