> > Not at all. I don't really care how they are created as long as they are > correct and consistent. Consistent is why I like the new format. So > using a macro language to generate a file of the new format would be > rather invissible to the pattern's end user.
My $0.02: Steve is right -- the user shouldn't ever be exposed to M4. My druthers: Only one footprint library, based upon ASCII text footprint files. This supports everybody: -- Users who want to draw the footprints by hand can do so using PCB & then save out the results to a file. -- Users who want to generate footprints parametrically can do so using Perl, Python, etc. using stand-alone utilities. -- Users who love to live in emacs can type in the symbols by hand. My main point is that making M4 an intrinsic, exposed part of PCB is a turn-off to gEDA's target audience: board designers. They shouldn't be expected to know that there is an M4 based footprint lib as well as a normal, file-based lib. They shouldn't even have to ever see M4. Stuart
