X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-CMAE-Analysis:	v=2.4 cv=IqjbzJzg c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=5fd3ce8b
	a=+cj0cO56Fp8x7EdhTra87A==:117 a=QXuHdrGicBpVIbzyUqDs1w==:17
	a=9+rZDBEiDlHhcck0kWbJtElFXBc=:19 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=zTNgK-yGK50A:10
	a=lR3gZLasmS6WtTuDZtEA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
X-SECURESERVER-ACCT:	glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] SAB processing patches
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References:	<e4ff3c96-939b-a93e-a32f-5e938b6daa63 AT epilitimus DOT com>
	<7c75ed03-456c-b408-8b50-0448f6b3a04f AT epilitimus DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2012011606400 DOT 6785 AT nimbus>
	<1b2c64b3-6a36-c1f3-dd54-bb583c6bea17 AT epilitimus DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2012021253440 DOT 1262 AT nimbus>
	<475f980e-fddd-60d1-9a02-a5bc5fb5805b AT epilitimus DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2012071333290 DOT 3907 AT nimbus>
	<e6c5135f-b127-fd55-91b2-79aa357a5a07 AT epilitimus DOT com>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 21 DOT 2012081644480 DOT 3649 AT nimbus>
	<acfe8649-67d3-300b-2e58-a9936467199b AT epilitimus DOT com>
	<25887669-D8C1-48B8-BEE7-13EEBFC4D006 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<7f074abb-e7ae-275c-ee49-d06fc7f2a706 AT epilitimus DOT com>
	<D7588E29-0443-4C3A-AC08-A09CEB23ED1E AT noqsi DOT com>
	<e1e1f635-111e-583f-e07a-d4f7edf5dfcb AT epilitimus DOT com>
	<CCBE214F-C01B-4C34-88EA-2E915DC96762 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<836e84ad-aa1d-fa56-5996-7445d92e94db AT epilitimus DOT com>
	<1BBAE111-8895-4DD9-A10C-EB35019A6D93 AT noqsi DOT com>
	<a58b24a9-0db8-fe44-84ef-e862e7c66647 AT epilitimus DOT com>
	<0297F731-15CC-489C-9D2A-05A4C24F2DE3 AT noqsi DOT com>
From:	"Glenn (glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Message-ID:	<5c2f1d66-7cb0-065f-2e88-06966f563580@epilitimus.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Dec 2020 11:54:41 -0800
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
	Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.3
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<0297F731-15CC-489C-9D2A-05A4C24F2DE3@noqsi.com>
X-AntiAbuse:	This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse:	Primary Hostname - a2plcpnl0121.prod.iad2.secureserver.net
X-AntiAbuse:	Original Domain - delorie.com
X-AntiAbuse:	Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse:	Sender Address Domain - epilitimus.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via:	a2plcpnl0121.prod.iad2.secureserver.net: authenticated_id: glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
X-Authenticated-Sender:	a2plcpnl0121.prod.iad2.secureserver.net: glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-CMAE-Envelope:	MS4xfCz/i2+DEvHgzZNlbnLvB6SPCPgiEmqYGwUXuW3OCzwcbp0kw/+hc3Z5AEGPGm20ztPRGpEJQ5cJ7EKe/BNdLQksG8KsD5yJH9FDVHiNYVX4jCSAYova
	ePb/ctuXpXZmEUDE388Z2s+7w+sLQH1Mw3ow9mUoW1qm75BDbEivmM6ZoqNhTv/nAShQc5nP7QghuArBbbfgwvsx1FtGqtl5pDMlwWbniiVSPEYQ4Hx4yE1y
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

John Doty wrote:
>     SAB doesn't use spice-protoype but certainly a user could write a
> script
>> to make use of it in a non-spice context if they wished to do so, and
>> then access that script by means of an 'exec' action.
>
> A very strange notion. Of course a backend or any other script
> involved in processing schematics could evaluate a spice-prototype
> attribute, but what good would it be? The whole point of having a
> specialized attribute is to communicate specialized information.
> That’s one of the strengths of the gEDA/Lepton architecture:
> specialized flows don’t need support in the core, and don’t constrain
> other flows.
>
SAB is not tied to any particular flow. I intentionally tried to write
it in a way that was generic enough to allow it to be used in any flow
the user desired. That is why there are only three built in actions,
'discard', 'bypass', and 'exec'. The first two are only built in because
they are (to me) obvious and simple. Anything more complex is handled
via an external user specified script accessed through the 'exec'
action. Such scripts could easily process specialized attributes, or
interpret attributes normally used in one flow to accomplish a similar
task in a different flow. Whatever makes sense to the user. So in my
view SAB actually extends the concept you describe above by taking that
stage out of the backend which means the backend no longer enforces a
particular flow on the user.

Glenn

- Raw text -