 | | 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
