Subject:
|
Re: Question for the LSC. Blanks in file names legal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Apr 2005 15:53:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1030 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > > I looked at
> > > http://www.ldraw.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=45
> >
> > As a followup question, at first read/reread, the document is a bit confusing.
> > The term "line" is overloaded. In one case line means, text as it would be
> > viewed on a terminal, and in the other it is a graphical representation of what
> > mathemeticians call line segments.
> >
> > As it reads we have triangle lines, quad lines, line lines, and conditional line
> > lines. Is it just my dyslexic mind, or is this a bit confusing to others?
>
> It's not just you. Is the new version of the spec better? It still carries the
> overloaded definition, but it doesn't rely on it as heavily. The new version of
> the spec is at:
>
> http://www.ldraw.org/article/218
Can we differentiate using "text lines" and "line segments"?
>
> > Can we choose a different word for the textual representation of said things?
> > Maybe text records?
>
> "Text record" just doesn't work for me.
I know. It didn't do much for me either.
>
> We could call the things drawn by linetypes 2 and 5 "edges", and the things that
> do stuff could be called "commands" (actually, the spec already does that).
See above.
>
> Steve
Kevin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question for the LSC. Blanks in file names legal?
|
| (...) It's not just you. Is the new version of the spec better? It still carries the overloaded definition, but it doesn't rely on it as heavily. The new version of the spec is at: (URL) Can we choose a different word for the textual representation (...) (20 years ago, 5-Apr-05, to lugnet.cad)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
