 | | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
(...) I think I agree with that. Actually, I could go either way. (...) Right. (...) I'm opposed to allowing additional comments between INVERTNEXT and the statements it affects -- one program's 'comment' is another program's 'meta-statement'. OTOH, (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Part 892 [DAT]
|
|
Hi, my name is Johan Vettefors and I've been lurking around here for some time. I have a question about the ldraw library. The part 892.dat which the tringle with clip in for example the lego sets speeder bikes and naboo swamp is NOT identical to (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Part 4180
|
|
(...) I thought I remembered a more recent discussion about this, but I can't find it. What I'm seeing is that really instead of the current part 4180 there should be three composite parts: 4180c01--Brick 2 x 4 with Permanent Black Train Wheels (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.db.brictionary, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with s/3070bs01.dat?
|
|
(...) checking. (...) I guess I should have picked this up in the final checking for the 2003-01 parts release. Regardless of the results of this discussion, I have submitted a fixed part to the Parts Tracker. Chris (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
|
(...) Actually this is stated in the BFC spec but it wasn't enforced until the PT was created. -Orion (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
