 | | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) insist? Did you mean await? The whole file including primitives should be BFC compliant to have the CERTIFY. (...) Yes, a NOCERTIFY can be considered as a (temporary) turn-off-BFC, and other BFC statements should silently be ignored. /Lars (24 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) IIRC, my claim of making this BFC compliant was found to be incorrect when reviewed in the PT. So to expedite its release, I suspect Steve did an admin edit of the 0 BFC CERTIFY line (since we only insist on BFC compliance for primitives) to (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) You're welcome. (...) I understand that every effort is made to prevent errors, and also that this will never prevent all errors. I posted the message in order to determine if this case is indeed an error. I posted to this group because I'm (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) Hi travis, Thanks for LDView, Each part is carefully reviewed by volunteers in Parts Tracker. That means if a part says CERTIFY you can be pretty confident regarding its usage of BFC-ed primitives. I think errors are still possible with (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
I think part 970s01.dat has a BFC problem. I'm working on my BFC parsing in LDView, and it printed an error in this file, so I went and looked at it. At the beginning of the file, it says: 0 BFC NOCERTIFY Then later in the file, it says: 0 BFC (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
