13 Dec
2002
13 Dec
'02
11:35 a.m.
Steve Harris wrote:
.py is really darn easy to learn and has the benefit of being
readable the day after. :)
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 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