On Jan 4, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Britton = Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) = [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] = <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>= wrote:

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:25 PM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:

On Jan 3, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> = wrote:

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at = 7:38 AM, Nicklas Karlsson (nicklas DOT karlsson17 AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> = wrote:
> As I've mentioned = previously I'm talking pcb, which is a more painful
> format to parse (such that so far as I'm aware the parser in pcb is = the
> only one). Personally I find formats like this:
>
> device=3DRESISTOR
> T 44400 49300 5 10 1 1 90 0 1
>
> substantially less readable than ones with field = names, but they are indeed
> easy to parse. The pcb format is quite a bit more = elaborate and the
> savings from not rolling your own parser are more = significant.

Yes this is simple to parse, use little file space but do not = have field name. To use little file space and be simple to parse is = actually two good properties of a file format.

Lack of field names may be worked around by having a list of field names = in the beginning. If this list of field names is sorted according to how = often they are used and each row only have to list used values it would = probably be a file format with rather good properties.

To enumerate the field names at the beginning of the file may also be a = solution. Or maybe to use representation of data structures from a = programming language.

Although these = are good measures, once you adopt them you may start asking yourself why = you aren't just using a binary format. The argument for text is = that you can glance at a chunk of it and easily tell what's going = on.

A stronger = argument for text is that you can process it with text-oriented = tools.

But = ultimately the reason for wanting to use those text-oriented tools is = the same: you can see what you're working on with your own eyes. = In every other respect binary is = better.

Not = true. The easiest tool for changing all of the rev=3D attributes in your = schematics to match the git tag is a shell script using sed. Text = formats keep trivial transformations like this easy. Binary formats get = in the way. Binary formats make complicated transformations slightly = easier, but I think its more important to break down the barriers that = make simple stuff much harder than it needs to be.