At 07:49 PM 9/6/2010, you wrote:
> I like the idea of using geometric shapes at the lowest level, but for
> most PCBs this is *way* too low-level to be efficient. We need some
> way of arbitrarily grouping shapes, grouping groups, etc, and creating
> some sort of macro/library/callout for those groups, so that we don't
> end up (for example) redefining a pad stack for every one of hundreds
> of pins.
>
Several times now in this thread I keep thinking that the language Forth is
being described. 'Words' built up on previously defined 'words'...
I have often thought that I would prefer to write an HDL that works
like Forth. If used in this way, it becomes a bit Lisp like in that
the data and program would need to become one and the same. The
Forth that describes the design would be executed to "create" the
design in memory or to be output as a set of Gerber files. But to do
things like DRC, you would need to analyze either the image in memory
or the design source itself as data.
If I find some time, a lot of time, I may work on that at some
point. But there are many other projects on the list ahead of that one.
Rick
_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user