Re: gEDA-user: [PCB-Patches] Action-documentation

[kai-martin knaak <kmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

DJ Delorie wrote:

>> PS: (*) Would a general switch of "element" to "footprint" receive a
>> warm welcome by the developers? This would provide more consistency 
>> between geda and pcb wording.
> 
> element
       (...)  

> footprint
       (...)

I'll take this as a "no".

 
> I think this is consistent with gschem; a symbol in your schematic
> specifies the footprint it needs when it becomes an element on your
> board.

It may be consistent. However, it is confusing to newbies, at least 
the ones I have been in touch with. IMHO, there is no need to use
different words for types of land patterns and their instantiations.
General language works pretty well without such a distinction. 
A chair is a general class of objects. If I beg you to bring me three
chairs, you won't look for three different types of chairs.

---<)kaimartin(>---
-- 
Kai-Martin Knaak
Ãffentlicher PGP-SchlÃssel:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0B9F53



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