On Sun, 14 May 2006 14:04:28 +0200 Werner Hoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 13 May 2006 18:08, John Coppens wrote: > > Well, maybe this could be a suggestion for the gschem writers. I > > can't see why recursive calls could be useful, as there is no > > conditional construction to avoid problems.. > > Recursion makes short and powerful programs. Yes... But the symbol definition language doesn't have conditional constructs, does it? So how can one get out of a recursion? > > In general - it doesn't even make sense to _include_ symbols inside > > others, does it? I mean, nobody garantees that the included symbol > > won't change later on. > > In future there may be (will be) support for symbol inheritance. > http://archives.seul.org/geda/dev/Oct-2005/msg00043.html Inheritance seems way more logical. Symbols are passive objects... Or maybe we could even make them active (methods), so we need only one DIP component, one SIP... John
