Re: gEDA-user: wishful UI

[Armin Faltl <armin.faltl@xxxxxx>]

A collection of constants is a structured constant and a class is not
(only) a constant - well at least to me a structured property sounds
less missleading than the name class. Why doesn't a class include
net topologies, parts etc.? - That's what a true analogon of a class
would be - actually a (sub-)schematic and it's display methods.

Why is the container function "arbitrary" - could a structured property
contain other things than simple or structured properties?

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".
>
> 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.  Creating a single object that has to act as both a
> name-value pair *and* an arbitrary container is not a good idea.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>
>   


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