Subject:
|
Re: BFC problem with 970s01.dat?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:50:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1080 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs writes:
> 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)
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 non-BFCed
primitives usage. Because usage of non-BFCed primitives requires much more
attention to be validated. And reviewer attention is pretty high but
certainly not unlimited.
Of course if a part, like this one, says NOCERTIFY, then my reviewing
attention regarding BFC is naturally lowered to a nearly 0 level.
As a medecine: just report in the LDView error/warning window.
This is the best way for such errors to quickly disappear, as LDView is a
popular tool for part reviewers.
Damien
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
