kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Wayne Stambaugh <stambaughw@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/9/2012 2:28 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 10:37 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 4/9/2012 9:50 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>>> Wayne, regarding:
>>>
>>> DRAWSEGMENT::Format(), it concerns me in two minor ways:
>>>
>>>     case S_SEGMENT:  // Line
>>>         aFormatter->Print( 0, "line (pts xy(%s) xy(%s))",
>>>                            FormatBIU( m_Start ).c_str(),
>>>                            FormatBIU( m_End ).c_str() );
>>>  
>>>
>>> a) I don't think this is s-expression, the xy(...) should be (xy ...)
>>>
>>>
>>> b) It may be worth considering losing one token, namely the "(draw line"  might be
>>> "(gr_line".  (Really, I am just trying to cover my ass.)  I don't want to be blamed for
>>> the slow parsing speed later.   :)   Any reduction in another token that is simple like
>>> this is worth considering.  Each token in the stream is another delay, which cumulatively
>>> may be noticeable.   Maybe a common prefix for the graphic primitives in this
>>> DRAWSEGMENT::Format() would allow you to omit one token.
>>>
>>> Suggesting "gr_" or something like it prefixed to the primitive, instead of a full token
>>> "draw ".  My concern is speed later.   However, I'm guessing you are reserving the right
>>> to makes changes later.  :)
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm guessing it really gets important on the more common objects like tracks and vias,
>>> *especially tracks*, which end up being about the most common object in the file.
>>>
>>>
>>> ALSO:
>>> ==========
>>>
>>> Maybe we can get the (track...) on one line as a default, this will help also, since we're using two lines now.
>>>
>>> Whitespace in this format is not supposed to matter, but again, I am trying to get out of the way regarding parsing speed later.
>> As of now, the deepest indentation level is 6 spaces.  I know the
>> indentation is responsible for a lot of the additional file size but
>> getting rid of it would seriously reduce the readability file.  I'm not
>> sure there is an elegant solution to that problem.
>>
>> Wayne
> 
> 
> File size is no problem for me.  I don't see it being too tied to speed.  All my comments
> in this sub-thread were purely *speed* centered, speed only.
> 
> Eliminating an fgets() ( DSNLEXER::ReadLine() )  for each TRACK, gives me a running start
> on the speed comparison which will be inevitable.
> 
> So my concern was NOT the 6 spaces, I don't see that as significant.  But rather the fgets().
> 

We may be able to apply grouping here as well.  Something like:

(traces
  (xy 91.6686 85.4837) (xy 91.6686 81.8134) (width 0.6096) (layer 0)
(net 1))
)


may speed things up a bit.  It would require sorting vias and traces so
they could be grouped properly.