 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Lars C. Hassing wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> > [stuff about scoping of files contained within MPD files]
>
> L3P/L3Lab will draw 'some stuff' twice.
> The file B.DAT is never loaded, as the subfile B.DAT was loaded
> during reading A.MPD.
That's what I assumed.
> It doesn't matter whether subfile A.DAT references B.DAT or not.
Does it matter if C.DAT references B.DAT *before* referencing A.MPD? This
would change the example to:
> > A.MPD:
> > 0 FILE A.DAT
> > 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 B.DAT
> > 0
> > 0 FILE B.DAT
> > some stuff
> > 0
> >
> > B.DAT:
> > some other stuff
> > 0
> >
> > C.DAT:
> > 1 16 0 48 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 B.DAT
> > 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 A.MPD
> > 0
> An MPD should be regarded as a collection of files which is automatically
> unpacked before loading, so the scope is public.
That makes sense, and is simpler to implement. And could even be useful,
under certain circumstances.
> I would have preferred the scope to be private...
For MPD, I don't agree. But I feel there needs to be a follow-on to MPD,
designed specifically to support submodels within a single model file. It
should give consideration to issues of scoping and visibility.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Lars C. Hassing wrote:
> > It doesn't matter whether subfile A.DAT references B.DAT or not.
>
> Does it matter if C.DAT references B.DAT *before* referencing A.MPD? This
> would change the example to:
>
> > > A.MPD:
> > > 0 FILE A.DAT
> > > 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 B.DAT
> > > 0
> > > 0 FILE B.DAT
> > > some stuff
> > > 0
> > >
> > > B.DAT:
> > > some other stuff
> > > 0
> > >
> > > C.DAT:
> > > 1 16 0 48 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 B.DAT
> > > 1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 A.MPD
> > > 0
Yes, it does matter. L3P/L3Lab give you a warning
SKIPPING "a.mpd" Line 4: FILE b.dat already read: 0 FILE B.DAT
and 'some stuff' gets treated as part of file A.DAT.
So here 'some other stuff' and 'some stuff' get drawn.
> > An MPD should be regarded as a collection of files which is automatically
> > unpacked before loading, so the scope is public.
>
> That makes sense, and is simpler to implement. And could even be useful,
> under certain circumstances.
>
> > I would have preferred the scope to be private...
>
> For MPD, I don't agree. But I feel there needs to be a follow-on to MPD,
> designed specifically to support submodels within a single model file. It
> should give consideration to issues of scoping and visibility.
Right, my concern was the ability to compose a Datsville DAT file with
references to many MPD files submitted by contributors.
It should be OK for two authors to use the same subfile name,
e.g. "roof" in my example: http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=4188
/Lars
| | | | | | |
