 | | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) Call me paranoid, but long filenames make me nervous because of the other worms packaged along with them (like unicode or UTF-8, blech!). Sure your filenames might look great on Windows, but try to bring them over to another filesystem, or (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) Or, we should start by introducing the new standard, use it in a few (relatively obscure) instances, and give the various software authors a chance to sort it out. Considering the general pace of parts releases, a long-named file would be on (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) This suprises me. Can you elaborate on this? If we in the LSC are going to make an informed decision on this issue, understanding why this is the case with LPub/LSynth would help us greatly. I know all Win32 API calls work fine with long (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) I'm personally undecided on the issue of long filenames. On the one hand Willy is entirely correct that we probably shouldn't disallow them purely because of ldraw.exe/ledit.exe. On the other hand, Kevin's post that LPub/LSynth would both have (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Prefix character on meta commands?
|
|
(...) While I am a current member of the LSC, this hasn't been discussed there. It has always been my understanding that this format for meta commands was never intended to require existing meta commands (official or otherwise) to be changed. (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
