X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <20130521013029.16526.qmail@stuge.se>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 03:30:29 +0200
From: Peter Stuge <peter AT stuge DOT se>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] ITEAD?
Mail-Followup-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References: <51970516 DOT 6040101 AT neurotica DOT com> <CAL5HA=DVx7-YL=hrUkAzDh18ncWU7ffwmuzyhGUk8dzaZuKzyA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5199AB8C DOT 5060501 AT neurotica DOT com> <CANDNR8qOPEadaaExuEcYbV_sf=YvXk6b6Zx9xhEVJQkyphFFSA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <519AB9DC DOT 4060906 AT neurotica DOT com> <CAKakQcdG0BwtH9MJ+yBqos2GazXyCGWn8oH7emXnjZMBuvJRxQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKakQcdG0BwtH9MJ+yBqos2GazXyCGWn8oH7emXnjZMBuvJRxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Stephen Ecob wrote:
> one of the engineers of our "partner" company was very happy to
> explain how he'd modified it to give better linearity

What were his modifications?

Did he change some of your assumptions in order to accomplish the
better performance?


//Peter