On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, der Mouse wrote:
> > To:
> > Reply-To: gEDA user mailing list
> >
> > Even emacs can't help but send two copies with headers like this.
>
> Only if you insist on adding the To: address to the Reply-To: address
> when sending. If there's a Reply-To:, it's probably there for g
John Doty wrote:
> But for usability, the issue is one of scripting at a higher level. I
> love the way gnetlist interoperates so well with make, but users seem
> increasingly impatient and helpless these days. Maybe a missing
> ingredient is a Makefile creator.
It's worth mentioning that
>> My programming is mostly done in java using Eclipse, so I don't deal
>> with Make at all.
> Ugh. What you gonna do when you need a microcontroller running the
> show?
Probably about the same thing I'd do if I were to need to put a Windows
GUI in front of something: get someone else to do it, g
On Jul 22, 2009, at 2:15 PM, David C. Kerber wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
>> [mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of John Doty
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:56 PM
>> To: gEDA user mailing list
>> Subject: Re: gEDA-user: me
John Doty wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:38 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>>> I'm all in favor of this. But the right way to do that with a
>>> toolkit is usually to wrap the tools with high level scripts.
>> Isn't that was the whole gnetlist package *is* though?
>>
>
>
> At a certain level it is. Tha
On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:45 PM, der Mouse wrote:
>> I'm all in favor of this. But the right way to do that with a
>> toolkit is usually to wrap the tools with high level scripts. Adding
>> features to the tools themselves is the "cat -v" approach, the road
>> to bloat and inflexibility.
>
> As muc
> -Original Message-
> From: geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org
> [mailto:geda-user-boun...@moria.seul.org] On Behalf Of John Doty
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:56 PM
> To: gEDA user mailing list
> Subject: Re: gEDA-user: merge multi symbol components
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:38
> I'm all in favor of this. But the right way to do that with a
> toolkit is usually to wrap the tools with high level scripts. Adding
> features to the tools themselves is the "cat -v" approach, the road
> to bloat and inflexibility.
As much as I agree with the basic point, I think cat -v is no
On Jul 22, 2009, at 1:38 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> I'm all in favor of this. But the right way to do that with a
>> toolkit is usually to wrap the tools with high level scripts.
>
> Isn't that was the whole gnetlist package *is* though?
>
At a certain level it is. That's its strength. But ther
> I'm all in favor of this. But the right way to do that with a
> toolkit is usually to wrap the tools with high level scripts.
Isn't that was the whole gnetlist package *is* though?
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.
On Jul 22, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> John Doty wrote:
>> It worries me that people are wiring their scenarios into the tools,
>> when gEDA's unique strength is its flexibility. This isn't limited to
>> gEDA: it seems to be a programming universal that people feel
>> obligated to tu
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:07:54 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
>
>
>> In my case, I use one symbol to refer to all 8/16/32 bits of a GPIO port
>> on a microcontroller. I'll use a few bits from that port on one page,
>> and a few on another.
>>
>
> Ok, this is a legitimat
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:07:54 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> In my case, I use one symbol to refer to all 8/16/32 bits of a GPIO port
> on a microcontroller. I'll use a few bits from that port on one page,
> and a few on another.
Ok, this is a legitimate case. Still, the common error of unintention
John Doty wrote:
> It worries me that people are wiring their scenarios into the tools,
> when gEDA's unique strength is its flexibility. This isn't limited to
> gEDA: it seems to be a programming universal that people feel
> obligated to turn simple, flexible toolkits into bloated, inflexibl
On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:23:40 -0400, John Doty wrote:
>
>> I'm unhappy that you're putting another complex, opaque, inflexible
>> mechanism into the gnetlist *front* end. Put hooks into the front
>> end, yes, but leave the back end in control
> To:
> Reply-To: gEDA user mailing list
> Even emacs can't help but send two copies with headers like this.
Only if you insist on adding the To: address to the Reply-To: address
when sending. If there's a Reply-To:, it's probably there for good
reason, and it should take specific action to re
This is why...
To:
Reply-To: gEDA user mailing list
Even emacs can't help but send two copies with headers like this.
As for receiving, there's a simple procmail rule that eliminates
duplicates.
:0 Wh: .msgid.lock.$LOGNAME
| /usr/bin/formail -D 8192 .msgid.cache.$LOGNAME
__
> Just to be sure: The duplicated pins refer to the same physical pin,
> do they? If this is true, a merge of pin lists would be correct.
http://www.delorie.com/electronics/m16c-26-adapter/
I have one symbol that's normally used for connectors that maps the
whole MCU footprint to be connected to
> With its lack of types, declarations and explicit return values
> scheme is anything but transparent to the casual hacker. Add to this
> the abundance of heavily nested parenthesis and result is black-box
> magic to the uneducated eye.
C'mon, be fair. In this, it's no different from any other
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:23:40 -0400, John Doty wrote:
> I'm unhappy that you're putting another complex, opaque, inflexible
> mechanism into the gnetlist *front* end. Put hooks into the front
> end, yes, but leave the back end in control, with default behavior
> defined in gnetlist.scm.
Talk ab
On Jul 21, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> As you probably know by now, I try to improve the way gnetlist handles
> multi part symbols. As a first step, the list of symbols is sorted
> according to refdes. Next would be a merge of symbols with the same
> refdes. This would also be th
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:19:37PM +0100, Peter TB Brett wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> Recently there has been an increasing number of people who customarily post
> to the list with "geda-u...@seul.org" in both To: and Cc: fields. This
> results in my getting two copies of every e-mail you send, and
My mailer does that when I hit reply-all, which I do out of habit. Sorry!
Could it be a config problem with the list? Geda-user is the only one that
seems to do this to me...
b.g.
-Original Message-
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:45:26 am
To:
From: "Peter TB Brett"
Subject: gEDA-user
Hi everybody,
Recently there has been an increasing number of people who customarily post
to the list with "geda-u...@seul.org" in both To: and Cc: fields. This
results in my getting two copies of every e-mail you send, and is starting
to get irritating.
Could you please ensure that your mail cl
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> Connect it to an NC symbol to explicitly show that you don't use that
> pin in that instance of the symbol.
>
I'm sloppy, I just leave them open. :)
>> If I'm dealing with a wired-OR input, then the same pin might get used
>> on several different sheets. And if that
Peter TB Brett wrote:
>
> If it's useful for him, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't implement
> it. I don't believe that he's arguing that it should become the default
> behaviour.
>
Agreed. My impression was that he was working on a tool that could
become generally available, I was jus
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:07:54AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> > The main case I'd like to catch is unintentionally duplicated symbols. If
> > both, refdes and all pins are identical, it is safe to assume an error.
> >
>
> Nak. In my case, I use one symbol to refer
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:07:54 -0500, Bill Gatliff
wrote:
> Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
>> The main case I'd like to catch is unintentionally duplicated symbols.
If
>>
>> both, refdes and all pins are identical, it is safe to assume an error.
>>
>
> Nak. In my case, I use one symbol to refer to al
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:55:33AM +, Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:28:37 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > Note that I have at least one schematic where the merging of the symbols
> > would have duplicated pins; this is intentional and they're supposed to
> > be "connected" to
Kai-Martin Knaak wrote:
> The main case I'd like to catch is unintentionally duplicated symbols. If
> both, refdes and all pins are identical, it is safe to assume an error.
>
Nak. In my case, I use one symbol to refer to all 8/16/32 bits of a
GPIO port on a microcontroller. I'll use a few
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:28:37 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Note that I have at least one schematic where the merging of the symbols
> would have duplicated pins; this is intentional and they're supposed to
> be "connected" together.
Just to be sure: The duplicated pins refer to the same physical p
31 matches
Mail list logo
