|
|
 | | Re: Idea: How starting to work for a unique Lego piece naming convention?
|
| (...) They weren't. (...) They were discussed openly -- several times. Probably the reason they were easy to miss was because they were discussed in RTL, where things get lost easily and it's harder to go dig stuff up later. --Todd (25 years ago, 8-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.db.inv, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Idea: How starting to work for a unique Lego piece naming convention?
|
| In lugnet.admin.database, Todd Lehman writes: <snip> (...) hey, how come these thing were keep in the dark? thing like that should have been open to public long ago. Martin (25 years ago, 8-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.database, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.db.inv, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: What's in 8277?
|
| Well, look at that, my set is complete! Thanks very much, you've saved me a character building experience... Want a third set at a discount? Heather (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
| | | | | Re: Parts naming conventions
|
| (...) Exactly. If everyone assumes a set starting orientation, such as the word "lego' on the studs is right side up readable from left to right then it would be trivial top decide upon a convention for describing a particular side or top/bottom. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
| | | | | Re: Parts naming conventions
|
| Jim Hughes wrote: <snip> (...) Right. And you could denote whether a thingabob was vertical or horizontal with a variant on the cis/trans nomenclature as well, instead of using vertical. if we agreed that "cis" (or whatever we picked) meant an (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
|
