Subject:
|
Re: Request for more stringent naming of (Complete|Shortcut) parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:19:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5520 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> > As thorough as this document is, it is incomplete or ambiguous in the area of
> > describing "compound parts". For example 4107488.dat, "Technic Tread (Complete
> > Shortcut)" is actually composed of multiple of 681.dat, 680.dat, and 682.dat
> > instances.
>
> Shouldn't 680.dat, 681.dat, and 682.dat all be in the parts/s directory? They
> don't represent real pieces of plastic (or rubber in this case), so I don't
> understand why they are modeled as such. Or do synthesized sub-parts get
> treated differently?
>
>
<SNIP>
> --Travis
Yes, they should, but the "mistake" was made eight years ago, before we had the
clarity that time brings to standards implementation. The same applies to
754-756, at least.
For backward compatibility reasons we can never remove these files from the
parts directory, as people may have used them directly in models, and we don't
want to break those models. The best we could do is to replace them with "~Moved
to" files that redirect to a file in the parts/s directory. But all that does is
add another file to the library, for little added value.
This dilemma was recognised in the mass header edit that was part of the
Contributor Agreement implementation resulting in the 2008-01 update. The
description lines in these files are now prefixed with a tilde, indicating that
LDraw applications should not list them in their parts list.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
10 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
|
|
|
|
