 | | Re: Working on 6032.dat Brick 2 x 3 x 1 & 2/3 Octagonal offset
|
|
(...) This is in my "delvolopment" queue for LDraw.org features. Unless Steve adds this to the PT, I think I can whip up a website module. -Orion (22 years ago, 8-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Working on 6032.dat Brick 2 x 3 x 1 & 2/3 Octagonal offset
|
|
(...) Yes, that's true. I do drop a mail to this list when I'd like to announce a part (in those rare cases when I have time to do some part authoring). The problem is that you get only feedback if the other part author working on the same part (...) (22 years ago, 8-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | RE: Working on 6032.dat Brick 2 x 3 x 1 & 2/3 Octagonal offset
|
|
(...) "Working on" (...) duplicate (...) I thought that was one of the purposes of lugnet.cad.dat.parts ?!?!?!? (22 years ago, 8-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Working on 6032.dat Brick 2 x 3 x 1 & 2/3 Octagonal offset
|
|
(...) I join to Niel's opinion, it would be useful to have a so called "Working on" list to announce if an author is working on a certain part, to avoid duplicate efforts. The precursor of present day Part Tracker (I don't remember its proper name) (...) (22 years ago, 8-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Working on 6032.dat Brick 2 x 3 x 1 & 2/3 Octagonal offset
|
|
I wasn't only talking about abandoned parts, but all the ones people are working on that'll take a long time to finish. (since the other ones probably gets finished before somebody else starts on them). But now you're forgiven (for the sins you’ve (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC inversion...
|
|
(...) It may be required by the part tracker, but it isn't required by the BFC spec. The spec specifically says that the first instance of any BFC command in a file implicitly turns on BFC certification in the file (unless of course it's a 0 BFC (...) (22 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC inversion...
|
|
(...) No it isn't. (...) You are correct. CERTIFY, according to the BFC spec, is only allowed once in the file, before the first 'executable' line, on the very first BFC meta-statement. In fact, CERTIFY is *required* on that line. Steve (22 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC inversion... [DAT]
|
|
Please let me know if this works OK now...... Thanks......... 0 Minifig Torso - SW Blast Armor (Green Plates) 0 Name: 973psb.dat 0 Author: Franklin W. Cain 0 LDRAW_ORG Part UPDATE 2002-04 0 CMDLINE -c7 0 KEYWORDS Star Wars, Boba Fett, bounty hunter, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC inversion...
|
|
(...) If so, then I missed it too (which is entirely possible!) I've never used CERTIFY at the beginning of a file, and TMK it's never been a problem. I use "BFC INVERTNEXT" where necessary, but no blanket CERTIFY statement. Is the inclusion of the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC inversion...
|
|
(...) Also, is it now standard to repeat the 'CERTIFY' keyword on every BFC line? I thought CERTIFY was only useful once at the beginning of the file? I've been out of the loop, did I miss something? -Kyle (22 years ago, 5-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
