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=pd7RNmkleK9cN00zGOF5YpMfoNSm2jslB05Yi7RzT48=;
        b=0Rs48d9bFjwRnJSLCzqcnff98G6gP4PWwD/M5xD5wvhDpqb5E03ivzT8i4Wd4NpNAu
         ZsZyJjRfvhEeIhvZ0Tk6K2xvfbrbggNxPwYWpo4+lVww3Gzlgr9qRqoNKfzyvOs8JM80
         y+4IfDEe0J7vgTRBTZ891KQ6mxuiQ2sJaGj9iUy+jSfPdDfAnzeV3vXnE6seXj1b6q/C
         sbcmaAsGXLXMTzyUaYxYu2SZQXUGoNDaMg3HM8qWCIAdKAV4HJjHUac0G8E4pIKQXSMd
         LUYxcw5Dl2V969CS3syD7NGVl+mflQeVo4+l2aN6B6aLxijhoVeCi+rgfG6KUFPc44+u
         Prgg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.5.69 with SMTP id q5mr10356688laq.92.1440526434691; Tue,
 25 Aug 2015 11:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1508251945120.6924@igor2priv>
References: <CAM2RGhTJ-gywb3LrkKoNKUxkwJCTsJ7vRxiLtmrXa5Mnp0331w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<DUB125-W46D6798DBF674B80F24208C6620 AT phx DOT gbl>
	<6B8DDCCF-0E84-43DC-94A3-89CE0E56F0ED AT noqsi DOT com>
	<201508242052 DOT 28189 DOT ad252 AT freeelectron DOT net>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508250534570 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<3766120C-93DD-454D-B2FA-7C79B78DC86C AT noqsi DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508251403030 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
	<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>
	<CAM2RGhRYZ5Mxf8yUqsSmQ0Uzdb-4jc6-cSCKQ4kiMS6bOfEiHg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<55DC8B80 DOT 4020504 AT iae DOT nl>
	<CAM2RGhTD2MKKuXhK=tP7EwfrKuUBa7A0uCZF17LNx6+XQknwAg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1508251945120 DOT 6924 AT igor2priv>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:13:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAM2RGhQ-y8io1aSrdBzd_zbZ80DLx=oKc9A-a2e6jwz=VOoytA@mail.gmail.com>
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]" <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 Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 1:49 PM,  <gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 11:36 AM, myken <myken AT iae DOT nl> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/08/15 16:51, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via
>>> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:17 AM, myken <myken AT iae DOT nl> 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.
>>>
>>> Maybe, but that doesn't automatically mean the gschem (geda) architecture
>>> will change!
>>> I use geda-gaf for schematic entry, simulation, VHDL design and PCB
>>> design.
>>> It is a great tool, just the way it is. I don't want it to change.
>>> But I do see a great benefit in a more accessible toolkit (including
>>> pcb).
>>> If that means adding an additional button in the menu bar, so be it.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Sound great to me. Anyone opposes this? Can we move forward from here?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think in that objectives thread a while back we agreed that adding
>> other plugin interfaces in parallel to scheme was a good thing. The
>> best way to do it would be via (gpmi) the same library Igor2 used in
>> pcb-rnd. That way we don't add any additional dependencies and debug
>> will be easier. One thing that would have to be worked out is how to
>> block gpmi from passing scheme along since it also supports that
>> language. We don't want to unintentionally gain an extra scheme
>
>
> That's not hard: gpmi is not doing anything by itself, you always explicitly
> request things. Your C code requests gpmi to load a module that interprets a
> language and your C code requests gpmi to run some code in it. If you just
> don't load the guile module and you ask it to run scheme code for you, it
> won't.

Ok. I have barely found time to run the testing I wanted, reading the
code keeps getting pushed forward.

> Btw, from your C code, you don't see any difference between scripting
> languages, you see an unified, simplified (and not very CPU efficient)
> interface. So after all, it doesn't even matter if you don't block your user
> from using scheme through gpmi, as it has no chance mixing with the scheme
> context used by gschem.

Ok. I just wanted to clearly define what I meant by in parallel. Thank
you for clarifying.

> Regards,
>
> Igor2
>



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/