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=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JPtXxZNMDdFFJFxeGdLKg2gtlSals4DEZ21lGFo54jY=; b=vqJj6JB18E67Tb1ZcAkG5FhaLHPpYTr2zQtbAVIlFoMLG7oes/0IKdLC2exuA2qOH1 63POMx22BHyyRqF7wR2KLyIxpHgIPWoNmSq0nyaCNL8SPTZ9SRdtPELnffPnVNVxPW/v BulML9s8VIpxsJ+kxRYdqiaAVUvwg7epeW4HKgYYsRhkTZCnISZVc2hcajv0k0Yc5Ck2 nmNSFrKMJjeFIgZaJbIaCvnJPgxmscueQrQ6hFoGoyrZXcFar4C9n56pnT/h5exky0bM ZZFYfMyFDruDGokmNKSGoJegHE1IJS7/3x8D+jHIBsqz8F2qRgVNTC1ZpCaBFx2xlt2+ A9rg== X-Received: by 10.152.22.4 with SMTP id z4mr27573590lae.81.1440532441071; Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 21:53:59 +0200 From: "Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] Re: off-topic: daydreaming about modularization Message-Id: <20150825215359.0e88ef8e605a29bf9d842ff7@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: 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> <55DC8B80 DOT 4020504 AT iae DOT nl> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 I do not know what kind of library (gpmi) is but somewhere in another thread someone suggested to use libpcfile and I guess what would be needed are functions to access the objects in the layout. If the layout is shown on screen I guess where would be a need to notify the graphics then the layout is accessed. Regards Nicklas Karlsson On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 12:42:25 -0400 "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 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 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 > interface (one is more than enough). > > -- > Home > http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/ > Work > http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/ > -- Nicklas Karlsson