 | | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | (...) Then the problem is at MPDCenter. 0 Name is a very good and recommended habit, but not currently required. But I have thought of using 0 Name to solve this problem. When exploding an MPD, the user may be prompted to either use the unique 0 (...) (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format —Michael Heidemann
|
| | | | (...) As 0 NAME is not required the only possible way of identifying a parts name is the content in the 0 FILE entry. So I have now two ways to go. 1) Only take the 0 FILE entry 2) If there is no 0 NAME entry - create one on the fly at MPD loading. (...) (15 years ago, 2-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Straightening Up the MPD Format —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | (...) If we ever get there to create an MPD standard, I would suggest way #2: Making 0 NAME compulsary in MPD-ed files. A good safety precaution would be to prompt user if 0 NAME data is present but doesn't match actual file name: * Rename file and (...) (15 years ago, 4-Apr-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
| | | | |
