 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
|
(...) Perhaps some folks would rather be explicitely controlled than to be scolded. I think it is partially a psychological expression. One the one hand "we don't put up with this here and we do whatever is necessary *immediately* to modify (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) Done. :-) (now we just have to see what the rest of the LSC says to it) (...) I have worked both with code-based and with string-based lookup (not professionally, though) the last ten-fifteen years. Both methods have their benefits and (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) Peeron/LDraw/Partsref <-> BL isn't simple, because the part numbers are NOT consistant. AFAIK, the only way to actually resolve that is to build a proper translation table, which is what I think BrikTrak uses. (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
|
(...) I would like to point out: (...) Isn't that an editorial control??? This is a paradox! I agree with the fact that Lugnet should remain a pleasant place to talk but as far as today I don't agree with the way how this is done. It is the same as (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) From a technical perspective I agree with Larry that the part number looks like the best key, and that the current part name is just one instance of an international language set of names. If we percieve peeron and and bricklink as countries, (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
