Subject:
|
Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:06:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
15406 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Jetro de Chateau wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I appreciate your work on this, but I wonder if there aren't other more
> important changes (albeit probably more difficult ones) that would be of more
> benefit to the community. I'm referring particularly to the present dichotomy of
> Beams and Liftarms and their internal inconsistencies which fairly drives me
> crazy any time I try to build something with LDraw.
>
> As for the proposed names, although they are quite long they are also consistent
> and very descriptive. I'm not clear on the use of "peghole" when what is
> attached to these are pins - pinhole seems to make more sense.
>
> Jetro
"Peghole" is already used in a few part descriptions in the official library,
and there are even primitives named peghole* to support their representation.
"Pinhole" is not used in the official library at all.
Chris Dee
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
| (...) I appreciate your work on this, but I wonder if there aren't other more important changes (albeit probably more difficult ones) that would be of more benefit to the community. I'm referring particularly to the present dichotomy of Beams and (...) (14 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
