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

[Dave McGuire <mcguire-atMUNGEDneurotica_dot_com>]

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

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