Subject:
|
Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Sun, 11 Apr 2004 17:23:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2130 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > What would the downside be of, over time, as parts go through review and renewal
> > anyway, gradually discontinuing the use of this command?
>
> 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.
This is always a good argument against removing any syntax. But see below.
> - To remove them would force all the parts that have the command to go thruogh
> PT recertification.
As is this one. But see below.
> > It is not a large number of parts that use this anyway, right?
>
> A short search gave back 179 files.
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 I am driving at here is, while removing a command is always
something that should not be undertaken lightly, does removing this command have
benefits that outweigh the cost? What benefit does the command actually give the
language anyway, for that matter?
I don't know the answers to these questions. I think they are LSC questions
anyway, presumably. But I think there's merit in discussing it.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 12-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 13-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 11-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
18 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
|
|
|
|
