 | | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
|
(...) <SNIP> (...) "Peghole" is already used in a few part descriptions in the official library, and there are even primitives named peghole* to support their representation. "Pinhole" is not used in the official library at all. Chris Dee (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Beams vs. Liftarms (was Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation)
|
|
(...) I am surprised by this renewed criticism of the Technic Beam naming as we have worked very hard on resolving that issue over the past few releases. Is your library up-to-date? As mentioned at (URL) most of these issues were resolved in (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
|
(...) I appreciate your work on this, but I wonder if there aren't other more important changes (albeit probably more difficult ones) that would be of more benefit to the community. I'm referring particularly to the present dichotomy of Beams and (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
|
(...) I am mostly OK with your suggestion. The only slightly illogical point is that the bush of 3651 and the Axlehole of 32039 are not so different, so why not name them the same? Otherwise, the other drawback of these names (especially angle (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Technic Axle Connectors - naming rationalisation
|
|
In (URL) Philo wrote "Speaking of rationalization, I would be very happy if we could find a coherent naming scheme for parts 3651, 32039, 6553 (and 32013?) - I can't possibly remember 6553 name...". So here is a first suggestion: Currently we have: (...) (15 years ago, 26-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
