Subject:
|
Re: wood4.dat, an example of LDLite syntax
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:26:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
610 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, paul@gyugyi.com (Paul Gyugyi) writes:
> Looks like LUGNET does not like this file, since the Type-1 lines
> have all been removed.
Heh heh -- Well! -- Paul, they *weren't* Type-1 lines!
From the LDraw FAQ:
Part command.
Inserts a part defined in another .DAT file.
Line format:
1 colour x y z a b c d e f g h i part.dat
where
colour is a colour code: 0-15, 16, 24, 32-47, 256-511
x, y, z is the position of the part
[...]
Color codes in Type-1 lines of .DAT content must be integers.
> You'll have to save the file from a
> newsreader and then open it. My guess is the Type-1 lines do not pass
> the test for .dat syntax and are thought to be garbage lines.
> All the Type-0 comment lines get sent to LDLite just fine.
No, Type-1 lines pass for .DAT syntax just fine. :)
It's the strings like 'main_color' and 'm_default' that you gave which
caused the lines not to match as Type-1 lines.
Here's the regex that the server uses to look for .DAT content:
http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad:1168
> Since this file demonstrates the LDLite syntax,
> only the first line of this file is in pure .dat syntax. (I
> had to insert it to allow me to post the file).
The .cad.dat group was created for .DAT-file content. 99% of what you
posted wasn't .DAT-file content.
> Should we change the lugnet.cad.dat group to allow LDLite syntax,
> or keep it to be "pure" .dat syntax. This only matters if you use
> the LDLite extensions to refer to colors by name, but I guess it
> would also affect things like LDS scripts.
It'd be shame not to support LDLITE extensions somehow. Options?
a) Create a new group for .LDL files -- lugnet.cad.ldl or lugnet.cad.dat.ldl
or
b) Retrofit lugnet.cad.dat to include .LDL content.
Since .LDL files aren't .DAT files, they probably ought not be posted to
the .cad.dat group for the time being. In either case (a or b above), I'll
need to rewire the server with a smarter regex that handles .LDL content and
can output
application/x-ldlite
for .LDL files, instead of
application/x-ldraw
for .DAT files.
(Is "application/x-ldlite" the right thing to use? Can you provide a stable
syntax definition for the LDLITE extentions that define .LDL content?)
I think between (a) or (b) above, I'd be tempted to go with (b) as you were
hinting at, since .LDL files are still .DAT-like in spirit, and since most
people probably use LDLITE and not LDRAW to view posted content, and since
future incarnations of LDraw would probably use the LDLITE syntax. But boy,
this isn't as simple as it appeared at first. BTW, if option (a) were
taken, and there were separate groups for .DAT files and .LDL files, it
would be difficult to prevent the posting of .DAT content to the .LDL group,
as .LDL is a superset of .DAT -- all of which points back to (b) being the
better answer.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: wood4.dat, an example of LDLite syntax
|
| Looks like LUGNET does not like this file, since the Type-1 lines have all been removed. You'll have to save the file from a newsreader and then open it. My guess is the Type-1 lines do not pass the test for .dat syntax and are thought to be garbage (...) (25 years ago, 27-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
