X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=d9t3OGfE c=1 sm=0 a=6jktZp3dcHAl1vye2O6wCg==:17 a=jl9P3j1e7_0A:10 a=M_ffKnrP7SkA:10 a=wZ22qzirHPMA:10 a=6WB07kdHjWAA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=0S8s51K_AAAA:8 a=WS0wvFspJICfaiDUqQUA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=c12d3Yiv1XMA:10 a=X_R2HHJIuKkA:10 a=n6kTumpy3E0A:10 a=6jktZp3dcHAl1vye2O6wCg==:117
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
X-Originating-IP: 70.113.67.117
Message-ID: <4F689C1D.9050008@ecosensory.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:02:53 -0500
From: John Griessen <john AT ecosensory DOT com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20120216 Icedove/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Pollution of gedasymbols
References: <1332246519 DOT 2657 DOT 14 DOT camel AT AMD64X2 DOT fritz DOT box> <20120320065951 DOT 7eed976f AT svelte>
In-Reply-To: <20120320065951.7eed976f@svelte>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

On 03/20/2012 08:59 AM, Colin D Bennett wrote:
> I have found that leaning toward being excessively verbose with
> symbol/footprint naming is the way to go.

Yes, John Luciani's naming scheme, (see http://luciani.org/geda/geda-index.html), is a good model.