Re: gEDA-user: General Layers questions

[Martin Kupec <martin.kupec@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
> Martin Kupec <martin.kupec@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 09:00:04PM +0100, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
> >> Martin Kupec <martin.kupec@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> > That is a bit complicated. I need a clean definition of layer types, so
> >> > one can pick the right layer when needed. But some attributes in
> >> > addition to layer type are possible.
> >> 
> >> I do not understand that argument.
> >
> > Ok. We probably don't understand each other, so I will just state my fears.
> >
> > I would like to know about each drawing layer where it belongs to.
> >
> > If layers types would be defined by attributes, someone would be able to
> > declare one layer both as conductive and as silk for example. That could
> > cause me a nighmares. That is why I insist on 'typed' layers, not
> > 'tagged' layer.
> 
> Hmm.  I think that is the old trap of overloading.  When you say that a
> layer type defines what you can do with it, then this one type attribute
> becomes messily overloaded.

So far we have like 10 types. That is not that bad. Some new may come,
but it is still keeping low.

The other way is to have a dozen of different attributes. And probably
with some constrains and hierarchy. I think that is more complicated.

	Martin Kupec



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