 | | Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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: 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 (...) (21 years ago, 13-Apr-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: CMDLINE (Issues on Parts Tracker)
|
|
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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
