Actually the guile api is the thing I am working on for my derivative/fork of geda. I am trying to move the basic file io from being c code to it being guile scripts. The intent being to make it easy to convert schematics and symbols between geda and other tools. As I am doing this I am trying to document the api.
As most of my last years efforts into geda has been at the library level and netlisting I have put in some level of error checking into my library but I am starting to contemplate the drc requirements as well. Steve Meier On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 17:50 -0800, Dave N6NZ wrote: > Steve Meier wrote: > > One could argue that that is why we have guile scripts. If you have a > > reasonable api access to the libgeda structures you should be able ask > > complicated questions about the completness of a design. > > OK, so I'll admit not having looked deeply into the capabilities of the > guile api access to libgeda. Seems like good infrastructure. But guile > is not a very approachable language for a rule author. A language that > compiles rules into a guile script makes some sense. I think it's key > that the rule language be expressive in the problem domain. > > -dave > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-user mailing list > geda-user@moria.seul.org > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user