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/ j...@noqsi.com _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user