On 08/13/2013 10:58 AM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote: > On 08/13/2013 05:48 PM, Lorenzo Marcantonio wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 07:14:05AM -0500, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >>> If you ignore the context of application, then this is the same thing as >>> guessing that a >>> mechanic hates his 5mm wrench when he goes to loosen a 11mm nut. >> >> I think it more than using a ratchet instead of an open wrench to loose >> the nut. Same result, different way to do it. >> >> Of course a really tight nut may require a long wrench and break the >> ratchet... i.e. not necessarily coroutines are the solution. > > The solution I proposed does not make coroutines obligatory. If you > don't want to use them in a particular tool, just don't call any > Wait()/Yield() methods. TOOL_INTERACTIVE constructor could have an > additional parameter that prevents creating an unnecessary stack frame > for coroutine-less tools. > >> >> As a way to maintain the tool state machine (fed by events), they seem >> appropriate to me; of course everyone will propose his own 'best' idea >> (heck, no women here:P) >> > Look at the PDF I put on ohwr.org - one can use coroutines, function > pointers or enum+switch for the FSMs, depending on his/her coding > habits. Nothing is forbidden. > > Tom
I had not seen the PDF before I made my initial positive comments. I had only read the synopsis on the web page. Maybe I missed it or maybe you added it recently. I wonder how important building a team around this code is. I wonder who will be on that team. Alfons sunk 7 man years into the code before it was useable. That suggests a team may be necessary. When do we see the code? Dick _______________________________________________ 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