 | | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) Couldn't that be dealt with by restricting the filenames to alphanumerics + the usual suspects (_ etc.)? My understanding was those were unchanged in any character set. Tim (19 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) Call me paranoid, but long filenames make me nervous because of the other worms packaged along with them (like unicode or UTF-8, blech!). Sure your filenames might look great on Windows, but try to bring them over to another filesystem, or (...) (19 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) Or, we should start by introducing the new standard, use it in a few (relatively obscure) instances, and give the various software authors a chance to sort it out. Considering the general pace of parts releases, a long-named file would be on (...) (19 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Moonbase Hobo Vignette
|
|
Moonbase Hobos. Enjoy. (URL) Now in four flavours: (URL) Raw,> (URL) Savoury,> (URL) Spicy> and (URL) The Works.> Peace and warmth, Professor Whateverly (URL) (19 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.build.vignette, lugnet.space, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) This suprises me. Can you elaborate on this? If we in the LSC are going to make an informed decision on this issue, understanding why this is the case with LPub/LSynth would help us greatly. I know all Win32 API calls work fine with long (...) (19 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) I'm personally undecided on the issue of long filenames. On the one hand Willy is entirely correct that we probably shouldn't disallow them purely because of ldraw.exe/ledit.exe. On the other hand, Kevin's post that LPub/LSynth would both have (...) (19 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Prefix character on meta commands?
|
|
(...) While I am a current member of the LSC, this hasn't been discussed there. It has always been my understanding that this format for meta commands was never intended to require existing meta commands (official or otherwise) to be changed. (...) (19 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | peeron inventory
|
|
Tuesday mar 27 7866-1: Level Crossing with Electric Gates: 3034 oldgray 1 not 2 x466, 2 wires are 4'10" and 2 are 2'4" 7823-1: Container Loading Crane: 4275a has hollow studs (some verisons may have solid studs) 4081a blue and red should be 4081b (...) (19 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Royal Coach of the House of Windsor
|
|
(...) Very nice. Love the way it sits on the chassis. The round 1x1 plates give a 'spring' look to it. Also, the small touch of dark red on the side of the coach and the harnesses on the horses adds a rich flavor. (...) I think you did pretty well (...) (19 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.castle, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Prefix character on meta commands?
|
|
(...) As the author of the meta command section of the 1.0.0.0 spec, my intention wasn't to twist the arms of developers into adopting the "!" prefix or the program name requirement. For non-official LDraw.org programs, I meant for these rules to be (...) (19 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
