 | | Re: A call to membership!
|
|
(...) Woot! :) (...) That would be cool. A little daunting, since L3P has quite a few nice controls, although LDGLite could probably handle them. I had talked with Don a year or more ago, and at the time we felt a tool-driven image renderer was the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat? [DAT]
|
|
The file has these lines: 0 BFC INVERTNEXT 1 16 0 8 0 6 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 6 box5.dat Is an empty line allowed after INVERTNEXT? Currently L3P complains. It takes the spec literally: 9 INVERTNEXT 9 This option inverts a subfile. It may only be used (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) insist? Did you mean await? The whole file including primitives should be BFC compliant to have the CERTIFY. (...) Yes, a NOCERTIFY can be considered as a (temporary) turn-off-BFC, and other BFC statements should silently be ignored. /Lars (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I like that. I think a clear indication that a comment is in fact a meta statement is needed. And I find "0 {META} " more distinct than (META), <META>, {BFC}, <BFC>, MODULENAME and whatever else has been suggested. But we're still stuck with (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | OT: Anyone heard from Michael Lachmann lately ?
|
|
I had been conversing with him about an MLCAD port via email back in December and January, but I haven't heard anything from him since ... I just hope everythings OK : ) (22 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
