 | | Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal? [DAT]
|
|
In 973p11.dat the first line reads: 0 ~Moved to 973p1a, 973p1b, 973p1c L3P can obviously handle this correctly, but my utility movedto.exe for one, treats the input like this: 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 973p11.dat is altered to: 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) You are not supposed to actually use the information in the comment, it's only informational. The ~ tells mklist to ignore this part. Just ignore the line, the following line type 1 will automatically redirect you to the new part. /Lars (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) When rendering Datsville, you'll recieve several hundreds of "Part n Moved moved to nn" messages. It is totally necessary to find a way to eliminate them, so I invented the movedto utility. (...) Yes, that's one of the uses for the "~Moved (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) There is: use the file referenced by the type 1 line in the MovedTo file. (...) Yes, MLCad messes this up as well. The problem is that you're using the 0 ~MovedTo comment as a reference instead of the type 1 line in the file. 0 ~MovedTo is a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Sorry, I'm a little bit slow. Exactly how am I supposed to do that with 973p11.dat? And then make this a generic routine for a utility to handle automatically? (...) My opinion is that neither MLCad nor MovedTo.exe messes anything up. I think (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) I had a look at 973p11.dat and I see what you mean. I'm not sure. (...) The rendering code is very neccessary. Not all LDraw programs automatically detect the fact the a file ahas been moved. If there were no rending code the the model could (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Sorry, Tore, but this usage was unavoidable. This isn't a normal part-move, the migration from 973p11 to 973p1a, 973p1b, and 973p1c is fixing an anomoly in the parts library. 973p11 is coded so that the undecorated surfaces of the part are a (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) I do denifinitely no agree at all. (Did anybody expect me to? ;) ) (...) Tell me you are not serious about that. Is that what we are supposed to recommend all MLCad users when they stumble on this issue, as well as I have to recommend it to (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
"Tore Eriksson" <tore.eriksson@mbox3...wipnet.se> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hu4JnF.15r3@lugnet.com... <SNIP> (...) 0 (...) 0 (...) such. (...) think (...) change of (...) rendering (...) MLCad does not mess it up, but doesn't detect more levels (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) It did for me. When MLCad found the refernce to 973p11.dat and asked if I wanted to upgrade, it changed all the "973p11.dat" references to "973p1a,.dat" references. Note the ",". -Orion (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: 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) "~Replaced by" is a good option. "Depecrated" is more meaningful to computer-language geeks, but I think "~Replaced by" would do the job. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) I'd like to see us stick with "deprecated" if we possibly can. Even if we have to explain it to E2L speakers, because it has a very precise meaning which is just the meaning we want, I think. (21 years ago, 7-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
"Tore Eriksson" <tore.eriksson@mbox3...wipnet.se> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hu5oLv.Eu4@lugnet.com... (...) me (...) But this is just a workarround to avoid any message. It won't solve the problem. I could imagine, doing a repetative check for (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) There's also 3846p43.dat ~Moved to 3846p45, 3846p46 (21 years ago, 17-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
|
(...) Thanks for finding that. I have submitted a fix to the Parts Tracker. Chris (21 years ago, 17-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
