Hi again -- >>> My idea was to make it Scheme like, similar to what gEDA/gaf uses. >> >> Oh, you want to add a full interpreter syntax (if not the interpreter >> itself)? I wasn't planning on changing the action syntax at all. > > My question is: does your current idea for the action script cover all > necessary cases required to import layout info/netlists? And do you > have the parser & related stuff already in PCB? If so, then go with > your idea. IMO, the goal is simply to optimize the bang/buck ratio by > "leveraging" [1] whatever stuff is available to make your work easier.
Just to follow up on my last comment, I wonder if there is anything to be gained by adding a full interpreter? The only thing I can think of is programmability, allowing users to write scripts *inside* of PCB which will automate repetitive layout jobs. However, my assumption is that most users who want to script PCB will just write *external* Perl programs to generate the action files, and then just read them into PCB. Is this a good assumption? Or do users prefer writing command scripts inside of their CAD tool? Stuart _______________________________________________ geda-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev
