 | | Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
|
(...) I think you picked a great spot to come in at. (...) Yep: format evolution = good. (...) Good idea. I'd also like to add that such a standards body should be relatively few in number. Not to be exclusionary, but to maintain focus. The number 7 (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) True. That's why I suggested a strong recommendation of using whatever comment prefix we will agree on. Then let's say the future L3P -check will raise a warning for omitting that prefix. /Tore (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
|
This thread has grown so much since Friday it's hard to know exactly where to interject.... so I just picked a spot. I'll have more to say later after reading the thread again but wanted to throw a few comments out. (...) YES! Exactly. And one could (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) As Steve would say - LDraw and LEdit exist as a benchmark. I would add - for the _original_ LDraw spec - that is, everything LDraw/LEdit can do. 1.0.0 spec, which is essentially what Kevin is working on - documenting all meta-commands up to (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) We already have a standard comment prefix: 0. For better or for worse, meta-commands are just comments that get interpreted to have meaning. I think it's unrealistic to expect users to remember to add a second comment prefix in addition to the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
