Subject:
|
BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 04:44:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1036 times
|
| |
|
|
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 INVERTNEXT
My understanding is that if you have a NOCERTIFY in a file, you shouldn't
have any other BFC commands. They certainly won't do any good, since the
NOCERTIFY says not to use BFC. There's also a comment made by (I think)
Chris Dee that says:
0 2002-06-10 CWD made BFC compliant
Perhaps it was supposed to say 0 BFC CERTIFY instead of 0 BFC NOCERTIFY? If
the file is like this on purpose, is it valid? Is it valid to have BFC
commands after a NOCERTIFY (which would presumably just be ignored)?
--Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
| | | 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)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
