X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=rO+XKerkBr1hkEmPyCdNJcocE+Tkg5lLnp5D2f8LrE4=;
        b=HDY0EnxLrSiMFOH5ipQ8UQQGe4ov0WoMnR2gdmPBXkWIhirYHMSW8dQWkJUtaffgds
         rFgKAQNlgbiiQ01Lx3ty/rcnXa5mSKpz/ipj4O3DiEm8aMY1bkhC9S2iSbsQxB3ZFmE1
         ilej+TrtvvaRqDiJAiqn4EYOD23lqcU/5ybqhWUuRoj008s0LKSRpOITLjs20jwWXEoA
         76czP05wuNeDBxz1M+wKHMDyiUpXiKWOBhLgo3UFGMTdSmX4jG9sn3yFfyIH/j8HyaO0
         QYUcLuBOg7AfkCSTfCZpREnJ1qE+675l+PDqJ51kpJh+bdpSjkz/5o0dZ/wJRqWn6gKh
         6urg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.49.44 with SMTP id r12mr13744560ign.41.1397768407652;
 Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201404172021.s3HKLTWI018066@envy.delorie.com>
References: <CAHBVutDDe4byff1H62pbpd-AVpPwbabAT7h9tWpqsFZu=_c70A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201404171458 DOT s3HEwG4r032541 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<CAC4O8c9YudRFRifhv0bdft2J_7jFVnLD2b1O=BQ8PgGaPJtw=g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201404171815 DOT s3HIFreo008095 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<lipc0k$6cv$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org>
	<201404172021 DOT s3HKLTWI018066 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:00:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAC4O8c8P-DuatFV=je_54d6gT+gLHCECSSiUeR-aHOwHPxeNUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] pcb graphical objects spec
From: Britton Kerin <britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:21 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> What are the other generators?
>
> Anything a user writes that conforms to the syntax.
>
>> The only two I can come up with are footprint generators and the pcb
>> export of pstotext.
>
> I have some scripts that generate *.pcb files directly.
>
>> If a footprint generator generates *.pcb files that are not
>> consistent with the output of pcb, I'd consider this a bug. The bug
>> may happen to be inconsequential because pcb interprets the file in
>> the intended way, but still a bug.
>
> No, this is the purpose of a spec.  The spec says that line separators
> are ignored, and both pcb and the generators honor that.  Just because
> the spec allows for arbitrary formatting doesn't mean that we have to
> pick one.

How about documenting what pcb currently does, and what transformation is
required to transform a conforming instance to the present reality?

Its great to have a spec but I bet 9/10 people that parse .pcb files aren't
ever looking at it, but just working from the file to do what they need.

Britton