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=20161025;
	h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
	:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
	bh=WE8fv3PsB+FTostqw/6rKfl5J7Ce06CgSUWMS4GV9x8=;
	b=jhjdee8qmV81RAnr4jBQfx04708ZIU3BWKATuF876h7RJ5o5dv0kdd4poRZcKejF7D
	qOFwj0BFwmvLni2YkQFF/8y4rl/rt21WKvR862/GNV+RdsLwBTKIZulNL3xpiRynyiJ3
	0x6eJsDYWVFvenhcX6frTdIR0pQvRILnY4AoQd2c8+Cgo2svqFxO+QUWr4jQHOh6AdAw
	Oa66xbDTz6hqEYXw6ptfaUa/NezRUW/7sHqYr1v3S7xo3F/kPdJai3RWA2oqEi7NBsjh
	Mjujm56eGnVj7FJduUhnKF2JP5+zzQMbHDVI8sCvIN18sCBiH8Ezs1JZAIq7WFg03F4W
	jG1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to
	:references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
	bh=WE8fv3PsB+FTostqw/6rKfl5J7Ce06CgSUWMS4GV9x8=;
	b=gy9taWh4Ng4TyFKzaCVUOGrOeJi4r3nOmIuZjV07d7LaZtrZT3T4nM3QOr48e27Kt3
	lfO0t7lj2o5H/pSwblrP7sDTMDLNLdJVWVtlZOCWMm9RgyCD5qsLJpB+8QFVOpJ7uiwS
	C7fJcz0qHixz+SBJ6uBhHADh+2Y3C2/z1cLAgT/dzJSKWhT5x/uJZOXOXkhq9vacxsgf
	PVYXsRnQiKCXJTIApDU/TYGolN1KzkRh/FdkAfqjMRvGBdIpnw+Suopqs8CN/xp+Er0U
	sWrBWSed3WH/LY8E+jT3ur1MvAjWq1LtTCDf3WBQLxIpVFWBNBIDNJARoYYT4BYXPBNu
	h+VQ==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AMke39lETXH55c11pigstgsHIRd9753YAxwHzUfIR/Qe4u/rjaPRg2s1jOqshLN9H6ickA==
X-Received:	by 10.46.21.23 with SMTP id s23mr5534042ljd.54.1486902411310;
	Sun, 12 Feb 2017 04:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Date:	Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:26:49 +0300
From:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gnetlist chaos
Message-ID:	<20170212122649.GD11686@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To:	"Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
References:	<D0E30DB4-3ADF-415C-A95E-B58F09AE054D AT noqsi DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702111609100 DOT 25113 AT nimbus>
	<CAJXU7q_ogjTmEOjruGJ3od-GYdv_gef0X_yc7Fne1q6kDu1xrg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<20170212090109 DOT GA450 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702121039420 DOT 2050 AT nimbus>
	<20170212102807 DOT GB30751 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702121203520 DOT 2781 AT nimbus>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<alpine.DEB.2.11.1702121203520.2781@nimbus>
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

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:37:15PM +0100, Roland Lutz wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> >you want to put "legacy gnetlist" developers and users into a ghetto
> >preventing its developement and calling it "obsolete"
> 
> Why are you clinging to the old version of the code?  What you are trying to
> do is much easier with the cleaned-up version.

Another case of trolling.

Do you already have support of hierarchy in your version?
Could you provide us with analog of the partlist module I wrote in
spring (now developed further in my branch)?

> 
> >What were incompatible changes you're complaining about?
> 
> For example adding a second, conflicting entry point for the netlister. If
> your goal is actually, as you claim, to make the netlisting functionality
> available from Scheme, you could add a binding for a simple function which
> constructs a Netlist object and assigns it to the_netlist.

I have already done this in my version. And it took not much
effort to just reflect C netlist in Scheme. And you could do the
same writing Python bindings for libgeda, but you prefer another
way.

> >To make things clearer. I have a vision and continue the work started by
> >Peter Brett to introduce new configuration system.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the way this configuration system is currently implemented
> because it makes things more complicated without really solving the problem,
> but I won't stop you from working on it.

Sure. I would better implement it in Scheme. Though it contains
means which any libgeda using tool can use 'just now'. As gschem
GUI is based on gobjects and gtk, Peter Brett has used appropriate
functions to accomodate it to all our GUI- and non-GUI-tools,
which use gobjects.

> >Next step would be to modularize gnetlist and gsymcheck and make their
> >code usable in gschem.
> 
> This is exactly what I did for gnetlist.  Why are you trying to undermine my
> work instead of building on it?

I don't want to undermine your work. I've not even dig deep into
it because of lack of time. I just cannot support two parallel
code bases. And just your statement that your code is better says
nothing to me, especially after I had many problems with it.

> >The most easy way as I see it is rewriting two these program as Scheme
> >modules and I've already did it with gsymcheck and published the branch on
> >github a year ago.
> 
> I don't think rewriting gnetlist is a good idea.  If I learned one thing

You've actually did that, IIUC.

> from cleaning up the code, it's that I wouldn't ever have got it right if I
> had tried to rewrite the code from scratch.

Agreed. And my word 'rewrite' is not about just rewriting. It is a
gradually modification, that is refactoring, with adding tests. My
skills in English are still poor and sometimes I cannot express
things correctly, sorry.

> 
> However, if your goal is to have a Scheme version of gnetlist, there is a
> relatively easy way to do that: just take my cleaned-up code and translate
> it to Scheme.  This should be easier than translating the C code to Scheme,
> and the resulting code would be much more maintainable.

As I stated before, I've already a Scheme version of
gnetlist. However to make clear how things are transformed (mainly
for developers and for debug in future) I decided to gradually
apply them, adding careful testing for each feature/bug. Hence my
ask for help on the list. I haven't seen the history of your
branch and don't want to add another set of bugs I already
stumbled upon before with your version.

> >You don't want for some reason have programs to be separate while some
> >users asking them to be so.
> 
> Why would I want to have this?  I've gone to great lengths to improve gEDA.
> If my intention had been to have my own project, it could have had the same
> result in less than 20% of the time because I wouldn't have had to bother
> about preserving the exact ways gEDA/gaf works.

This explains nothing but your wish to rule the project. One more
"do it my way" position...

[snipped trolling]

-- 
  Vladimir

- Raw text -