

Re: gEDA-user: weird names in PCB part library

On Aug 20, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Stuart Brorson wrote:
Not at all. I don't really care how they are created as long as they are
correct and consistent. Consistent is why I like the new format. So
using a macro language to generate a file of the new format would be
rather invissible to the pattern's end user.
My $0.02:  Steve is right -- the user shouldn't ever be exposed to M4.
On THIS point, however, I have to agree. I'm strongly in favor of the continued use of M4 (or its replacement with another macro processor or a VERY VERY LIGHTWEIGHT [i.e., not Perl, TCL, or Python] scripting language) but there clearly needs to be some sort of high-level user interface to it. And...

My main point is that making M4 an intrinsic, exposed part of PCB is a
turn-off to gEDA's target audience: board designers.  They shouldn't
be expected to know that there is an M4 based footprint lib as
well as a normal, file-based lib.  They shouldn't even have to ever
see M4.
...I agree fully that board designers who don't have the luxury of also being experienced programmers should NOT have to be exposed to it.


Dave McGuire "...it's a matter of how tightly
Cape Coral, FL you pull the zip-tie." -Nadine Miller