On 05/03/2013 01:56 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote: > On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 01:38:58PM -0500, Adam Wolf wrote: >> Lorenzo, >> >> I've already done the SWIG magic to hook up FILE * to Python file like >> objects. It was about 5 lines in the SWIG files. It works, today, >> using my patch and drill.py. This did not involve mmap, or rewriting >> anything to think of files as strings. I do not understand why you >> think this would require changes to Kicad. Can you explain your >> reasoning behind that more? > > That's because it's not only a FILE*, there are more FILE* and > temporaries being renamed and stuff. In fact the FILE* stored in the PDF > plotter changes for each stream opened. You can't pass the FILE* to open > plot because itself is not enough to do the whole shebang. > >> Thank you. I personally don't care if there is logic in the dialogs. >> My opening email for this said, "If people want the logic out of the >> dialogs, I volunteer to move it; if they want it to stay there, I >> volunteer to watch this interface and keep the scripts working." This > > Logic in dialog is not bad in itself... it could became *if* it were > duplicated for other purposes. So, now the drill logic is (partially) on > the dialog, and I'm fine with it. However should be some kind of drill > controller be implemented needing the same logic it would be best to > refactor it out so that it could be used by both. Of course this only if > they need to do the same thing... > > I think that separating 'just because they should be separated' in many > case is too extreme.
What about what I think Lorenzo? Is that important to you in any way? _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp