Subject:
|
Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:05:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1059 times
|
| |
|
|
> A far better solution had been to keep the 973p11.dat as base part but retitle
> it to "~Minifig Torso with Dungarees Pattern",
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 Pattern
0 Name: 973p11.dat
0 Author: Chris Dee <chris_w_dee@hotmail.com>
0 (LDRAW_ORG Part UPDATE 2003-02)
0 REM Moved to 973p1a, 973p1b, 973p1c
and, of cousre likewise:
0 ~Minifig Torso with Futuron Pattern
0 Name: 973p15.dat
0 Author: Chris Dee (chris_w_dee@hotmail.com)
0 (LDRAW_ORG Part UPDATE 2003-03)
0 REM Moved to 973p1d, 973p1e
... and so on with 973p35.dat and 973p37.dat. Are there any more?
With these changes, everyone as well as all applications should be happy (I
hope...)
/Tore
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
