Mail Archives: geda-user/2016/01/21/14:47:45

X-Authentication-Warning: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.8.0 04/21/2012 (debian 1:2.8.0~rc1-2) with nmh-1.5
X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: repl
X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: inbox
From: karl AT aspodata DOT se
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] should we broaden scope of libgeda
In-reply-to: <20160121184048.GD4788@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20160102091556 DOT BBC6D809D79B AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <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>
Comments: In-reply-to "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
message dated "Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:40:48 +0300."
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 20:39:28 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
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 Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 06:40:16PM +0100, karl AT aspodata DOT se wrote:
> > Vladimir:
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 03:41:42PM +0100, karl AT aspodata DOT se wrote:
> > > Karl, please, no. Don't compare static C string "CVS" compiled in the
> > > code of the program, which you've proposed, with the hi-level Scheme
> > > function taking any argument. Peter Brett, IIUC, has apparently meant
> > > this.
> > Apparantly you didn't read the followups. And re. "CVS" that could be 
> > fixed, don't expect first version to be perfect.
> I've read all them now (before, I read only first two followups)
> and found nothing different that could change my opinion on that.

Well, he had 3 objections,
 1 regexp (which I fixed),
 2 scheme (I didn't know scheme well enought, so I couldn't fix that)
 3 something about "precedence ordering" which I didn't understand,
   I asked about it but he didn't explain it

The "CVS" string was a hack to skip the CVS dirs inside the cvs tree, I
could just as well leave that out.

The g_strconcat("cvs/", entry, NULL) was also a shortcut, just as your 

 $ grep '"sym' ~/.gEDA/cache-symbols.scm
 (define cache-dir-name "sym_cache")

something to be solved later if the patch had any chance to get applied.

So I really don't understand your conclusion. But I suggest we drop 
this now. I only wanted to make the point that things are not layed out 
for c. It is to make it easier for the scheme part, and any incentive 
to make it easier for a c-caller are rejected. Hence a comparision 
would be unfair.

And as a sidenote, since c-development wasn't seen favourly, my 
involement faded.

> > > You see, the function 'file-name-separator-string' doesn't work. It's
> > > a stock guile 2.0 function. What's your version of guile? And what's
> > > your version of geda-gaf?
> > ...
> > 
> > $ guile --version
> > Guile 1.8.8
> > 
> > Ok, damn it. Another project is using 1.8...
> OK, I understand.
> I've already mentioned this link:
> although I don't know if the recipe will work for you if your
> geda-gaf version is not 1.9.2 where I've dropped the guile 1.8
> compatibility.

I have a dev-box I have meant to install but I have been ill since
some time so things have been lagging.

/Karl Hammar

Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
+46 173 140 57

- Raw text -

  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019