On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 02:03:53PM -0400, harry eaton wrote: > Here is my take on the pcb libraries; it basically agrees with Steve's. > I personally do not know the ins and outs of M4 - I know just > enough to toy with the M4 based libraries. That does not mean that > M4 is bad, but I agree that *users* of pcb should not need to know M4. > > Surprise! They don't. That's why I wrote the new style libraries, so nobody > would be *required* to write M4 macros, including me. That I did not > gut the M4 macro libraries from pcb was a good thing. Eventually it will be > possible to remove them (at least to a separate tool folder), but anyone can > safely ignore them now. I marked them all with ~ because many of the > old library parts are just plain wrong and I want to avoid having any bad > elements appear in the new libraries. Even so, the old libraries were very > useful and it would have been a huge penalty to pcb to remove them > completely > and I had no chance of having the time and energy to validate the good ones.
Heh - I think I have designed the whole Twister using mostly the old libraries :) I didn't know their use is discouraged :) Cl<
