X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com From: Christian Riggenbach To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: [geda-user] Using Lua to safely read configuration and layout files (program attached) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 14:12:58 +0100 Message-ID: <3635158.z6Jv0Z2n4b@jasum> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.4 (Linux/3.18.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.4; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <20150208003842 DOT 63db8a55 AT jive> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 Sunday 08 February 2015 12.41:12 you wrote: > I agree that scripts/expressions would have little use and cause problems in > general schematics which are modified and saved often, but I can also see > that it would be very useful for parametric symbols and reusable > sub-circuits. I wouldn't want to limit the parser/interpreter to preclude > it - it would be better to define what will and won't be supported by the > application. It would be hard to police, but i think that's more of a sledge hammer problem: no one should forbid me the possibility to use one, even if it's not the best option. And being honest, to have a whole scripting language for symbols would be sweet. > It might be enough simply to say that schematics/symbols can be as dynamic > as you like, but they will be evaluated once when instantiated and will be > static from that point on. +1 Or have some kind of editor in gschem to "escape" scriptlets. You can define accessors for lua objects, so you can parametricate quite simply without disturbing the API. -- mit freundlichem Gruss Christian Riggenbach