X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID: <20150317182617.22729.qmail@stuge.se>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:26:17 +0100
From: Peter Stuge <peter AT stuge DOT se>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] pcb alternatives
Mail-Followup-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
References: <CAHLh21Cdm=YZuqCQ+gCHSviJquahr6cnAQ-VBLR4BSs-nfHOig AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAOFvGD4+4bHXNYLvePi70wb_1A4=dQgb_Ov3xBghoKbXQUsSGA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5508413E DOT 4000405 AT ecosensory DOT com> <C2997FC5-EE8B-47E4-A8D5-24B6D22B2D64 AT noqsi DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <C2997FC5-EE8B-47E4-A8D5-24B6D22B2D64@noqsi.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

John Doty wrote:
> What puts *me* off is the lack of any clear conceptual foundation
> to stand on. There are no elementary objects to group together to
> make complex objects. There’s no grouping hierarchy. Instead, there
> are predefined complex objects

I might have asked before but I'm not sure whether it was answered:

Which elementary objects would you use instead of the current
predefined ones, and what would be a couple of concrete advantages?


Thanks

//Peter