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:mail-followup-to:references
	:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
	:user-agent;
	bh=Nyp9erDf45zvWYAz/MGoaOTzjtFpI9x7hfg8iveNyz4=;
	b=hnXorlFhoyQmO2FOJNQs+Jox6VyaTFi5heZ6Sp+8YtUdsn2sY1JvRayIa+IUF0js+k
	vzPnYboW915SbkTUzG1IYeIfmYJv+96y1AEpjKy+oAfyC/lw8rJwXarKNbhMfN8MESuM
	CIN2En7G/mR1qDTxt5q3s9lFAdV9C5VSqL05aMdaHL/r7DjSh+vYz/hBIcifGa6raVZc
	9zIhCxmXBKmSSWjFpgkWJYsBmLT6VfCUjwcXDfn2+wEUMxPoA5vmW87QM1BhWJnOQmar
	t+pnrqi5AyDgDGaTccewVWhIcN+v1jfyuL3bh3WEsPrBayMaex7OBAWqTNjHLXm42a13
	0cIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition
	:in-reply-to:user-agent;
	bh=Nyp9erDf45zvWYAz/MGoaOTzjtFpI9x7hfg8iveNyz4=;
	b=bGWTwExv8lkXvE57y/CVZGx9EycJxeiI+yzV/8wRAxL45WwmDnkmgPoYkSbNwSmDn0
	7KqyLSGVn3g68zqt7yqGUF8mQKTzv4Rxi1Xuv8Uo8zXzLSsxoXytexcen/TKuIELkKJE
	HAEMTufQWXHkclPve/9psKX7MLlNeb9VFn4rcGuRkptKK2JNKmXjDYKxxFSIknlf2GiG
	ILTaq/Tt4MpwVMRxE9SF42Fm87yGUX2ypXawrapxrwZOVKtfnTI1pYFJu/2Z4jkytjBm
	3v6uefJF18CDeChdR+zkmo9IWMh9/Rce+PmHlpl0uKdlSl9fr+VuH+cVAJ31XdcsG5dR
	P1jw==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AG10YOTkgqmFWe/qulSb4dJZnt3PbbmegdWPL7UCp3536JcsVPttJDYRjSgZeFbvYP619w==
X-Received:	by 10.112.73.41 with SMTP id i9mr1672678lbv.128.1453482813426;
	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 09:13:33 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Fri, 22 Jan 2016 20:13:30 +0300
From:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] should we broaden scope of libgeda
Message-ID:	<20160122171330.GA17122@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References:	<CAJXU7q_Zwyfpcb4g00QCFNTjQ9Le2Tm8WjKz3CKMnNXb7gMceg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20160102131252 DOT F383A809D79A AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
	<CAMvDHVCi5wR78jybhOEG0EmKyqWVpeaoYFuyWkWSrtkxF7kXQw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20160121144142 DOT 2703D81053E4 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
	<20160121161958 DOT GB4788 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<20160121174016 DOT E995881053E3 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
	<20160121184048 DOT GD4788 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<20160121193929 DOT 11E5881053E4 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
	<CAMvDHVB1jRzDJ_sJnpBwT-YEDSphiLLVVsDYW+jKW0NNKTq2dA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20160122110632 DOT D67C281053E3 AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20160122110632.D67C281053E3@turkos.aspodata.se>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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

Karl,

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:06:32PM +0100, karl AT aspodata DOT se wrote:
...
> > IMO, 3 is the consequence of non-2. It is much more easy for
> > mere gEDA user to change order of looking through the directories
> > in rc-files (which are Scheme code) rather than in C code.
> 
> a, I asked about 3 in
> 
>    http://archives.seul.org/geda/user/May-2011/msg00646.html
> 
>    and provided a way to sort the list.

OK, I have seen that.

> 
> b, And I still don't understand why libgeda adds component-libs in reverse 
>    order of appearance in rc file. If ordering is important, order in 
>    sym-browser should be the same as order in rc file

Probably for the same reason for which gschem opens first the last
specified file? I would better fix this in Scheme by doing just
(reverse file-list) rather than in gschem.c. Now, as I know Scheme
a little, I consider hacking C code much more difficult, if we
would not count trivial cases which are simple in both languages,
of course. Another reason is probably no one has filed a bug
report on this yet?

> 
> c, It cannot be that difficult to provide a way to change order "after 
>    the fact" so to say
> 
> > We should make things simpler for users, right?
> 
> Simple and better means differnt things in different contexts.
> I think the goal should be
> . respect the local users way of working
> . don't place obstacles in his/her way
> and such.

Sure

> 
> > OTOH, I don't think that even glib is simpler than guile or less
> > error-prone. However, it also depends on what you already know.
> 
> Don't know much about glib, except they have the now redundant types 
> gint etc. instead of stdint.h, and that when malloc fails they abort().
> abort() makes glib off limits for daemon developments and therefore I
> haven't worked with it.
> 
> How does guile handle out of mem. condition ?

It uses garbage collector and frees developer from memory
management. OTOH, it has other mechanisms to avoid such
conditions, e.g. tail call recursion instead of the plain one. As
many of modern toplevel languages it has exception handling and I
believe, if such a condition would be met, guile will throw an
exception.

Cheers,
  Vladimir

- Raw text -