 | | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
(...) I personally feel that whitespace should be ignored. However, if that is the case, the BFC spec should probably be updated to note this. It might also be argued that further comments after the INVERTNEXT should also be ignored. However, I (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) Actually, no it wouldn't. It would render incorrectly after the primitive was BFC certified if you guessed wrong about the ultimate orientation of the polygons in the primitive. However, until the primitive is certified, it will not be BFC'd, (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) No I thin khe meant that only new and updated primitives are required to be BFC compliant to be accepted to the parts tracker. Parts are still accepted that aren't certified though that is preferable. Though I'm not sure I've seen anything (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
Lars C. Hassing wrote: > Currently L3P complains. It takes the spec literally: 1 > 9 INVERTNEXT 2 > 9 This option inverts a subfile. It may only be used immediately before a 3 > 9 subfile command line, and it only influences the immediately 4 > 9 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat? [DAT]
|
|
The file has these lines: 0 BFC INVERTNEXT 1 16 0 8 0 6 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 6 box5.dat Is an empty line allowed after INVERTNEXT? Currently L3P complains. It takes the spec literally: 9 INVERTNEXT 9 This option inverts a subfile. It may only be used (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 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 (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
