 | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker —Andrew Westrate
|
| | | (...) I personally think it would be worth leaving this as-is, because this part originally appeared in the 2002-03 parts update, but the gold version didn't come out until 2003. I wouldn't want to have to delete cmdline statements from official (...) (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Could we have a review/explanation of the use of CMDLINE again? (or a pointer to documentation). While I support not making unnecessary changes, I'm not sure I understand if this one is necessary or not. (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) Basically the CMDLINE staement specifies a default color for the part. This is useful if the part only came in one color. I far as I know, no LDraw programs actually use this Meta command. -Orion (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Thanks. What would the downside be of, over time, as parts go through review and renewal anyway, gradually discontinuing the use of this command? It is not a large number of parts that use this anyway, right? ++Lar (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) I would say that it's a good thing to leave them in. 2 reasons for this: - Once developers decide they want to support it, the implementation is aleady there. - To remove them would force all the parts that have the command to go thruogh PT (...) (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) This is always a good argument against removing any syntax. But see below. (...) As is this one. But see below. (...) Not a large number in the scheme of things really. IF the change is done to parts as they are changed anyway... I guess what (...) (21 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | (...) I've never used "CMDLINE -c" except under protest, and dislike its inherent obsolesence. One could argue that almost EVERY part occurs in only one colour the first time it is produced. As soon as the second colour is produced the dat file is (...) (21 years ago, 12-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: CMDLINE (Issues on Parts Tracker) —Franklin W. Cain
|
| | | | | | I like using the CMDLINE as a concise way of documenting the default (i.e., the *usual*, not necessarily the *only*) color of a part. The CMDLINE is usually shorter than the corresponding sentence. For example, for the Minifig Flame, I'd rather see (...) (21 years ago, 14-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: CMDLINE (Issues on Parts Tracker) —Tore Eriksson
|
| | | | | | (...) I have always liked CMDLINE followed by a default colour, and I have the feeling that I am one of those who have used it most times. I also think it really is a pity that it hasn't been used by any [online] catalog or other partlisters (that I (...) (21 years ago, 15-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) The CMDLINE meta-statement was originally created to give us some way of giving rendering suggestions to programs that use the parts library. For instance, it was thought that we could specify a 180deg rotation for all those panel parts (like (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| | | | |
