 | | 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 ?!?!?!? (20 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) (...) (20 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 (...) (20 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 (...) (20 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 (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
