X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-TCPREMOTEIP: 100.0.183.69 X-Authenticated-UID: jpd AT noqsi DOT com From: John Doty Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BAAF4701-E4D9-42EE-A353-FD1BFE1601F3" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Subject: Re: [geda-user] SAB processing patches Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 19:19:20 -0500 References: <20201130220505 DOT 0AE4282C54FD AT turkos DOT aspodata DOT se> <7c75ed03-456c-b408-8b50-0448f6b3a04f AT epilitimus DOT com> <1b2c64b3-6a36-c1f3-dd54-bb583c6bea17 AT epilitimus DOT com> <475f980e-fddd-60d1-9a02-a5bc5fb5805b AT epilitimus DOT com>

<25887669-D8C1-48B8-BEE7-13EEBFC4D006 AT noqsi DOT com> <7f074abb-e7ae-275c-ee49-d06fc7f2a706 AT epilitimus DOT com>

<836e84ad-aa1d-fa56-5996-7445d92e94db AT epilitimus DOT com> <1BBAE111-8895-4DD9-A10C-EB35019A6D93 AT noqsi DOT com> To: "Glenn (glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <0297F731-15CC-489C-9D2A-05A4C24F2DE3@noqsi.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) 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 --Apple-Mail=_BAAF4701-E4D9-42EE-A353-FD1BFE1601F3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Dec 10, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Glenn (glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com) [via = geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >=20 > John Doty wrote: >> Or you can make them once in a backend independent manner. >>=20 >> Sounds like some of the early gEDA mistakes, like the overloading of >> pinseq. How is anything but a SPICE flow going to make sense of a >> spice-prototype? >>=20 > SAB doesn't use spice-protoype but certainly a user could write a = script > to make use of it in a non-spice context if they wished to do so, and > then access that script by means of an 'exec' action. A very strange notion. Of course a backend or any other script involved = in processing schematics could evaluate a spice-prototype attribute, but = what good would it be? The whole point of having a specialized attribute = is to communicate specialized information. That=E2=80=99s one of the = strengths of the gEDA/Lepton architecture: specialized flows don=E2=80=99t= need support in the core, and don=E2=80=99t constrain other flows. >=20 > Glenn >=20 John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. jpd AT noqsi DOT com --Apple-Mail=_BAAF4701-E4D9-42EE-A353-FD1BFE1601F3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

On Dec 10, 2020, at 6:01 PM, Glenn (glimrick AT epilitimus DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

John = Doty wrote:
Or you = can make them once in a backend independent manner.

Sounds like some of the early gEDA mistakes, like the = overloading of
pinseq. How is anything but a SPICE flow = going to make sense of a
spice-prototype?

SAB doesn't use spice-protoype but certainly a = user could write a script
to make use of it in a non-spice = context if they wished to do so, and
then access that = script by means of an 'exec' action.

A very = strange notion. Of course a backend or any other script involved in = processing schematics could evaluate a spice-prototype attribute, but = what good would it be? The whole point of having a specialized attribute = is to communicate specialized information. That=E2=80=99s one of the = strengths of the gEDA/Lepton architecture: specialized flows don=E2=80=99t= need support in the core, and don=E2=80=99t constrain other = flows.

Glenn

John Doty = Noqsi = Aerospace, Ltd.

jpd AT noqsi DOT com

= --Apple-Mail=_BAAF4701-E4D9-42EE-A353-FD1BFE1601F3--