Subject:
|
Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Apr 2004 15:40:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2508 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
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 incorrect. We should not be recycling parts through the Parts Tracker
for this reason alone.
It might be that other options on a CMDLINE statement may have some value - not
that they have ever been used.
I can confirm that there are 179 official files with "CMDLINE -c" and one with
"cmdline -c" (3471.dat).
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
