 | | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) And Lego may change the number of that 2x2 from 3003 to 53456343, but it'd still be a 3003 to us, right? (...) Yes, true. (...) LDraw numbers are designed to be unambiguous. And that unambiguity is enforced by the fact that we store our data (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) Exactly. (...) Yes. (...) I wouldn't. But we would have to work around that problem anyway. (...) Exactly. Play well, Jacob (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
|
(...) I was thinking about the 'various ways' that people could get around the built-in filter (if there was one). Then I started thinking that if the filter turns specific words into #%##$, and people know that, so they type S P A C E D words to (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) Both. The default for CATEGORY is the first word from the part title. Most parts have no explicit CATEGORY. I believe in all the examples given by William, the default CATEGORY is in effect. (...) I expect we'd work on updating translations in (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) a. I don't think gettext prevents you from using message codes in your code, it just allows you to use whatever text you want. b. Allowing embedded messages makes it easier for programmers, because they can read what's being output. c. (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) But the existing part names are the unique identifier *we* have control over. Lego may well start calling a 'Brick 2x2' 'OleKirk347' in the next version of the moulds, but it's still a 'Brick 2x2', right? There's also the value of at least a (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
|
(...) I wasn't the least offended. In fact, I thought it was a misspelling of something (which I didn't try to decode) when I read the post. (...) I agree with you. There's no difference between admins cancelling and admins threatening action if the (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
|
(...) Apparently my impression wasn't quite correct here. (...) Yes. But that would require the programs to be able to work directly on whatever translation format we decide to use. And it would inflate the parts library updates with approximately (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
|
(...) I guess I'd probably change the phrasing Larry used here-- Posting profanity IS a violation of the TOU, no if's about it. This speaks it better: (...) No two ways about it, you're already in violation. Question is whether or not you want to (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: rtlToronto19: Balance of Power and other upcoming events
|
|
(...) One option for the weight restriction is to use something like the weighting currently in use for jockeys... but on a case by case basis. Specifically, put two bots on the beam, then weight the end of the lighter beam until the two start off (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
