Re: gEDA-user: wishful UI

[John Doty <jpd@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:20 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
>>> But "property" is such a nice, clean, simple building block.  Why
>>> pollute it by adding more functionality and making it more complex?
>> 
>> Because then you can extend the concept without limit. It's like
>> "function" in mathematics. You can construct functions from
>> functions. But if such constructs were no longer functions, you'd
>> get stuck.
> 
> To abuse your analogy, our properties is like "constants" in
> mathematics.  Classes would be "functions".

Except in the proposal, classes cannot be composed of other classes.

> 
> A property is like "width = 5" or "impedance = 50".  A class is a
> collection of properties, which could include a collection of classes
> or whatnot also.

OK, so now you have two entities where one suffices. How is this simpler?

"Class" is a misleading term in this context. Nets (at best) have properties: classification is sloppy thinking. The utter failure of early efforts to base AI on classification of objects should surely have taught that to us.

>  Creating a single object that has to act as both a
> name-value pair *and* an arbitrary container is not a good idea.

You offer no reasoned support for this opinion.

John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd@xxxxxxxxx




_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user