X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
         :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        bh=McIEt/7rP/HzK2caqe8SzhIFprpadyF96YNcdtPTi/M=;
        b=Hs4ND8YopJsnACMx+tHS+ULTJ8KjQ4IOf3wZIvO4vRzWB5kx3kCWzzA89aDVFhz28J
         TE6eIL5SJzBrUWL+H91gg/XBh7+9YTU/bDyaSRDa4fpR2d9SFmwEVeXZLY7jtqro8U4r
         Ihv7X72W8NSl59ojZqwTYOw49Jj/3jB3vQuZsnKSthQSwcFRl4ix4n7v3vE5EbA3gNAh
         3GLXLHvvN97VbznN5tvXCdubGr1Fsy4EosCQrGY0liiwUtBdvzvTjD8LYA/lDWmkstxt
         jjKb4l8Cx8Bo4f6mQ3r4VaiJtiLpExLKRxbUV5uQXbG6/y7Yt+nruz0XAZ+fDhabncDm
         evlQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to
         :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        bh=McIEt/7rP/HzK2caqe8SzhIFprpadyF96YNcdtPTi/M=;
        b=WkNnG1fwPA1uVbCLdbijeXtA09WF2cu+raD7RMt0j65GcA7NiJVYw6fqH8L5pObG0p
         UsHIKnwcJhmgfRx9xCKxnb/LSC9Q2M+GtxFqthlMvqpRcAZMonXTwpc/cKIcjp7HHB5J
         QgvJF+NfTHF+xieK3MX/JyaNJOFkEUx5mxrd0H3G0CTMOL7YuZbfA22337ppiRjVsiO0
         bwQ/nOxWhlP5HmBfw4Q9TwwfNRTDK6AcWebMdgHAZ0TAm/DlZDtM8gwmFnMGP1Dexh3A
         AFlqCCHFAaYsB6d+/APvmfF2Y+/Y7t/3EJH+GoHxTwQxoO3G9LGnKbXe4YM3Ji4KYnfn
         Qmeg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39knCyXxTcMBtNjVOYRhw5SF2ATrRvgcxWLsvILaB0BQWEvlybJJinuNwPDaOT/EoA==
X-Received: by 10.25.76.85 with SMTP id z82mr4459546lfa.181.1486928473523;
        Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 22:41:11 +0300
From: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] gnetlist chaos
Message-ID: <20170212194111.GC4706@localhost.localdomain>
Mail-Followup-To: "Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
References: <D0E30DB4-3ADF-415C-A95E-B58F09AE054D AT noqsi DOT com>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702111609100 DOT 25113 AT nimbus>
 <CAJXU7q_ogjTmEOjruGJ3od-GYdv_gef0X_yc7Fne1q6kDu1xrg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <20170212090109 DOT GA450 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702121039420 DOT 2050 AT nimbus>
 <20170212102807 DOT GB30751 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702121203520 DOT 2781 AT nimbus>
 <20170212122649 DOT GD11686 AT localhost DOT localdomain>
 <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 11 DOT 1702121538030 DOT 2881 AT nimbus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1702121538030.2881@nimbus>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
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

Roland,

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 04:19:56PM +0100, Roland Lutz wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> >Do you already have support of hierarchy in your version?
> 
> What do you mean with "support of hierarchy"?  If you are referring to the
> fact that the Scheme API doesn't allow access to the hierarchy information
> in the netlist, this no longer applies as backends can now access the full
> information available to the netlister.

I mean hierarchical representation of a schematic. Something like
schematic-tree in my branch. The makedepend backend uses it.

> 
> Backends using the legacy Scheme API obviously won't benefit from that
> unless the API is changed, something which I wanted to avoid unless there
> was some from of consensus to do that.  It wouldn't be hard, though, as the
> API is cleanly contained in one file:

I remember your words about consensus on this list. Should I
reproduce them here?


> 
> https://github.com/rlutz/xorn/blob/master/src/python/geda/netlist/guile.py
> 
> >Could you provide us with analog of the partlist module I wrote in
> >spring (now developed further in my branch)?
> 
> You introduced a lot of changes in the files, so it is hard to see what
> actually changed.  In what way is the output of the partslist backend now
> different than before?

I posted an example of simple LaTeX backend on this list in summer.
I said 'partlist.scm', not 'partslist'.

> 
> >On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:37:15PM +0100, Roland Lutz wrote:
> >>On Sun, 12 Feb 2017, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via
> >>geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> >>>What were incompatible changes you're complaining about?
> >>
> >>For example adding a second, conflicting entry point for the netlister.
> >>If your goal is actually, as you claim, to make the netlisting
> >>functionality available from Scheme, you could add a binding for a
> >>simple function which constructs a Netlist object and assigns it to
> >>the_netlist.
> >
> >I have already done this in my version.
> 
> You have not done that.  Instead, you chose to modify the old code to patch
> some extra entry point onto that.

Oh, well.

> 
> >And it took not much effort to just reflect C netlist in Scheme.  And you
> >could do the same writing Python bindings for libgeda, but you prefer
> >another way.
> 
> That's exactly the point.  Doing it the simple way isn't much effort, but
> it's wrong for several reasons: it still requires the netlister to be
> invoked from inside a gEDA/gaf application, it still only exposes those
> parts of the netlist information for which you bothered to write an API, and
> the code would still need a severe cleanup.

Even before my refactoring, gEDA Scheme API was able to reveal any
info you could use to make structures you need, and I used just
it. In my branch, all information available in gnetlist C code is
now available in Scheme.  I don't understand your point
here. Anyway, you also had to write some API to make available
your data in xorn.

> 
> If your intention is to have a better Scheme API or a way to invoke the
> netlisting functionality from Scheme, just build on the current version of
> gEDA/gaf.  It allows you to do so really easily.

About my intentions I've written several times last few days, so I
don't want to reiterate here. Besides, I've already stated clearly
that I won't work on geda-gaf in mainline any more.

> 
> >As gschem GUI is based on gobjects and gtk, Peter Brett has used
> >appropriate functions to accomodate it to all our GUI- and non-GUI-tools,
> >which use gobjects.
> 
> Again, that's the point.  Doing so causes all kinds of problems for GUI or
> command-line programs which do not use GObjects, effectively forcing every
> tool which wants to read gEDA files to use GObjects.

I don't think anything is wrong with this now, though I myself
wouldn't use gtk for configuration. I heard several opinions on
this and just don't bother yet.

> >I don't want to undermine your work. I've not even dig deep into it
> >because of lack of time. I just cannot support two parallel code bases.
> 
> Then don't do it.  If you don't have the time to understand the existing
> code, you shouldn't be doing incompatible changes to a deprecated version of
> the codebase instead.

I didn't do anything in geda-gaf since September so you're off the point.

> 
> >>>The most easy way as I see it is rewriting two these program as Scheme
> >>>modules and I've already did it with gsymcheck and published the
> >>>branch on github a year ago.
> >>
> >>I don't think rewriting gnetlist is a good idea.
> >
> >You've actually did that, IIUC.
> 
> I did not.  If you don't believe me, check out the code I first posted on
> this list in 2015.  It is still much closer to the C code (even most
> function names were still unchanged) and reproduces the exact same output,
> but it already has most of the structure the code now has.

Oh, thank you. First review my branch and find all the bugs
(<irony> tags omitted).

> 
> >And just your statement that your code is better says nothing to me,
> >especially after I had many problems with it.
> 
> You continue to state that but can't give me a reproducable example, so I
> can't take your claim serious.
>

Oh well.

And let's stop this "constructive" discussion.

-- 
  Vladimir