>> You're saying that a square box with half of a circle to the
>> end is easier to remember it's an AND-gate, than a square with
>> an "&" inside?

OK.  No.  But it's easier to recognize the old-style gates "at a  
glance", and some (many?) of the DIN (in Eagle it's the DIN logic  
library that has the "offending" symbools?) symbols for the more  
complex gates are really incomprehensible (though in retrospect it's  
not clear that the older symbols there are any better.)
The whole "everything is a squarish box" philosophy that seems to  
pervade is a giant step backward in schematic clarity, IMO.  It's like  
like the thought process was:

1) Americans and Europeans can't agree on symbols for gates, so we'll  
use something completely different from either one.

2) high-res graphics terminals/cards are just too expensive, so  
everything has to be drawable using the linemode character-based  
graphics in the IBM PC font...

BillW

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist