On Aug 13, 2010, at 5:39 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > >> So why not just have properties, and sets of properties. > > A set of properties *is* a class, if you apply the same set of > properties to many nets. Why not let the user pre-define such > classes, to make their work easier?
I suggested that. I also suggested considering a set of properties to be a property, not a class. Or did you not understand "flattened union". Maybe that was too obscure. John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd. http://www.noqsi.com/ [email protected] _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
