> The right kind of flexibility is even more important > to the developers than to the users.
Since you're not a pcb developer, how can you know what the right kind of flexibility is? > In your sense, you have no idea what the "space of the possible" is > for the integers. Of course I do. It's aleph null, the set of counting numbers. Possibly the set of whole numbers, if you don't count negation as a separate operation. Plus or minus zero. > Yet all integers can be represented by strings of two digits. Not > much of a developer burden. It is if you're designing a watch. Offering the user a string of ones and zeros doesn't make a usable product. > Ales did an incredible job of representing the "space of the > possible" for schematics with a very clean bottom level. The > troublesome issues in gEDA come from upper levels that fail to > respect its generality. But there are far fewer issues there than > there are with pcb. The problem with geda is that the lower leves are *so* flexible, that there was no semantic consistency, no intrinsic model for the upper levels to follow. The results were sadly predictable. _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
