 | | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) No I thin khe meant that only new and updated primitives are required to be BFC compliant to be accepted to the parts tracker. Parts are still accepted that aren't certified though that is preferable. Though I'm not sure I've seen anything (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
Lars C. Hassing wrote: > Currently L3P complains. It takes the spec literally: 1 > 9 INVERTNEXT 2 > 9 This option inverts a subfile. It may only be used immediately before a 3 > 9 subfile command line, and it only influences the immediately 4 > 9 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: A call to membership!
|
|
(...) Nope not yet. (...) Kevin (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: OT: Anyone heard from Michael Lachmann lately ?
|
|
(...) I just had email exchanges with him about permission to use his meta-command definitions in our LDraw specification document. Kevin (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: ldraw based import parts
|
|
(...) OK, cool; I might even make one of my students do it! LOL. But again, be aware we won't even be starting again until the Fall - August 2003...California's budget crisis has meant we had to cut a bunch of classes (including the one that was (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
