On May 14, 2011, at 11:08 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > >> To counter that.. I see no compelling reason to keep it though. > > We'll need it more when we add layer types.
Real physical layers have material properties, thickness, and perhaps others. They don't have "types". > >> Given we'll probably end up keeping the irksome things, can we swap the >> terminology around? > > Yup. I think we decided "sheets" was the best term for what is now > known as "layers". Sheets are "views" of the design. They are not a direct representation of the physical structure. They are derived data, not fundamental. 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
