 | | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) Or, we should start by introducing the new standard, use it in a few (relatively obscure) instances, and give the various software authors a chance to sort it out. Considering the general pace of parts releases, a long-named file would be on (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) This suprises me. Can you elaborate on this? If we in the LSC are going to make an informed decision on this issue, understanding why this is the case with LPub/LSynth would help us greatly. I know all Win32 API calls work fine with long (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) I'm personally undecided on the issue of long filenames. On the one hand Willy is entirely correct that we probably shouldn't disallow them purely because of ldraw.exe/ledit.exe. On the other hand, Kevin's post that LPub/LSynth would both have (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) To elaborate: Suppose you have a part abcdefg.dat with loads of subparts (Too many to name with the 8.3 restriction). Just make a new subdirectory LDRAW/PARTS/S/abcdefg/ and put the numbered subparts in there (like (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting rif off the 8.3 nomenclature???
|
|
(...) Darn! In that case I'd suggest making a short filename preparer as a backwards compatibility measure. Perhaps it would bring all longfilename parts into an MPD (with shortened names) or something similar (eg. creates short name versions (...) (18 years ago, 28-Mar-07, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
