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:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=enDu8zxECv9CeAkKYiySgDshl3ZBJCYo664dVPBbQqc=; b=Q4UGDUGDJLkvPyibel71OZoAo15SHRKpjx0ylYxf2HBkbk+Qr4y5P5w3CpSlnKNnw5 ARNKrapj/WXT6jcYYpDgaVUjNIkg7Bv3YEQ9X+rXR/+zevz+WZr7iltyPcvLtfYq1dHy 2SPRLmv15k7NrgcTo2hpJCdTFMOoQVVCPnX7MhDqYkEWc+yKqgDNf93+0OIP6GukAorV 0CT+Ga4LD6PyUUsSBZH6opbR3pxApwQV+K8Y5h5TfB5aaVYC/e6r0lL+KPevVfz5xTxr APbsCYclRxLNrZcwg8diXyCCojhP2dbO67RRDH8Y+tyVru+/Q8sLk02hD/rMB6W8QN/1 OHbw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.45.104 with SMTP id l8mr26689329oem.61.1442431212637; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 12:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Sender: svenn DOT bjerkem AT gmail DOT com In-Reply-To: References: <55F5EFB6 DOT 6050809 AT ecosensory DOT com> <20150914100244 DOT 4c371d64616a1ca14f7e3912 AT gmail DOT com> <201509161753 DOT t8GHr83L007994 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <201509161846 DOT t8GIk6Dm010388 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:20:12 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QtixAi-2K-Sp_9f234TG1-c_vz4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] off-topic: key bindings From: "Svenn Are Bjerkem (svenn DOT bjerkem AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: geda-user Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149ce380aea60051fe23038 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 --089e0149ce380aea60051fe23038 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 16 September 2015 at 20:58, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 2:46 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > >> That is inarguable but meanwhile you have a user base that adopted the > >> current ones. This is why there should be at least two options. > > > > Sure, which is why we haven't really changed them in a while. EDA is > > a specialty function that requires consideration for special needs, > > such as custom key bindings. It's always a compromise unless you give > > all control to the user, which may cause more harm than good if the > > user isn't an expert on choosing key bindings. > > Respectfully that is a little condescending to the users. They may > have come from xyz commercial suite and have bindings they like. We > don't try to tell people which workflow to use. Likewise we should > leave them to their key bindings. Our job is to make the tool great > not to save people from themselves. > > Why not look a bit at how Cadence do keybindings. Their schematic capture tool is not very unlike gschem. Keys are bound to functions through an API call, an example is here: http://www.utdallas.edu/~huihua.huang/index_files/.schBindKeys.il In a post on their community forum, Andrew Beckett presents a solution to have multi-key bindings: http://community.cadence.com/cadence_technology_forums/f/48/t/13782 When doing SKILL development, I always used google to find examples. There are so many universities having cheap access to Cadence, and the students share scripts. There even is a USENET group comp.cad.cadence where tons of examples can be found. I'm not saying that geda should become a Cadence copycat, but remember that Cadence has integrated a lot of tools into their portfolio. Most of them have had different code base and they have glued the flow together with SKILL. guile could be the glue between gschem and other back-end tools in the free and open source EDA world. -- Svenn --089e0149ce380aea60051fe23038 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 1= 6 September 2015 at 20:58, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com) [via geda= -user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at= 2:46 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> That is inarguable but meanwhile you have a user base that adopted= the
>> current ones. This is why there should be at least two options. >
> Sure, which is why we haven't really changed them in a while.=C2= =A0 EDA is
> a specialty function that requires consideration for special needs, > such as custom key bindings.=C2=A0 It's always a compromise unless= you give
> all control to the user, which may cause more harm than good if the > user isn't an expert on choosing key bindings.

Respectfully that is a little condescending to the users. They = may
have come from xyz commercial suite and have bindings they like. We
don't try to tell people which workflow to use. Likewise we should
leave them to their key bindings. Our job is to make the tool great
not to save people from themselves.


When do= ing SKILL development, I always used google to find examples. There are so = many universities having cheap access to Cadence, and the students share sc= ripts.
There even is a USENET group comp.cad.cadence where tons o= f examples can be found.

I'm not saying that g= eda should become a Cadence copycat, but remember that Cadence has integrat= ed a lot of tools into their portfolio. Most of them have had different cod= e base and they have glued the flow together with SKILL.
guile co= uld be the glue between gschem and other back-end tools in the free and ope= n source EDA world.


--
<= div class=3D"gmail_signature">Svenn
--089e0149ce380aea60051fe23038--