 | | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Never heard the word "deprecated" before, but I can guess its meaning from the context. It's fine, "(Obsolete)" could maybe work too, but I don't care that much about the words chosen, long as it doesn't interfer with any tools. (...) Once I (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Yes, I guess this would work. although I'd prefer to add "(Deprecated)" or something similar to the title. I'm just dismayed that it has taken 7 months for anyone to realise that this causes problems with the toolset. The full list is : 973p11 (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
Please have a look at my suggestion on how to solve this problem, and let me know what you think: (URL) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Sorry, skip the rest of the statement. No need to touch the parts with hard-coded pattern (p1a, p1b, p1c, and p1j). The un-orthodox moved to - remark can be altered to a genuine remark statement, like this: 0 ~Minifig Torso with Dungarees (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Call for Nominations to LDraw.org Steering Committee
|
|
(...) Orion, Renè, many thx. I accept the nomination. w. (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
