| |
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 00:24:43 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote:
[Big snip]
I think there is some value in classifying real TLG models separately from
MOCs. You, Todd, could have
lugnet.cad.dat.sets
lugnet.cad.dat.creations
Which aren't completely self-obvious, but nothing's perfect.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
|
| (...) I like those. I think "sets" is a lot clearer than anything containing the letters "tlg", especially when placed alongside "parts" or "elements" and "creations." It's also nice and short, easy to type. :) OK, let's summarize all of the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
|
| [Added lugnet.cad.dev to newsgroups list] (...) A little bit, yes, but not a lot. Since you bring it up, now a good time to give it a second round of consideration. Here are some of my thoughts: One thing that would work out nicely in the .parts (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
