Steve Harris wrote: >> it's a nice little hack. the .g files don't look that messy >> to me, whatever hacks may be hiding in your .pl -- which is >> always a mess to my eyes. > >Yep, perl is horrible. Unfortunatly I've not learned python and ecmascript
.py is really darn easy to learn and has the benefit of being readable the day after. :) >If I was going to do it for real I would reimplement it in C + lex & yacc. yep, probably the best thing to do. >The .g files are just the simplest thing to transform into C, so they >have some odd syntax. they're fairly easy to read though. >Yeah, absolutly, its just the most complex basic that came to mind, I >wanted to check if it could handle loads of modules far down the graph and >still produce a decent binary. hard to concede the proof is complete with the garbled biquad. :) >You can define subgraphs, but not in the same file. It wouldn't be too >hard, but what it would really need is a graphical editor. sure, a gui will be really helpful for complex modules. nonetheless, i think the net description should come in a text-only format. tim
