On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:27 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > >> Now, the question becomes "which is more fundamental?". I think >> it's geometry. > > A hole is the same geometry regardless of what level of the heirarchy > it's placed at. So let me rephrase: Why have seven geometric holes, > one for each layer, when we can have one geometric hole applied to the > whole composite?
I think that an object that spans more than one layer cannot sensibly be considered primitive in a layer-centric description of geometry. My notion is that you need a general mechanism to align objects between layers. There are many cases where objects, primitive or composite, homogeneous or heterogeneous, require alignment. Having such a mechanism, you should then use it universally. If you bypass general general mechanisms for special cases, you risk creating a mess where general automation procedures fail in those special cases. Certainly you create a situation where the creator of automation needs to understand the consequences of all of the special case representations of objects. 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
