Subject:
|
Re: Issues with a Few Parts on the Tracker
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:51:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8110 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, "Larry Pieniazek"
<larry.(mylastname)@ascentialsoftwareDOTcom> wrote:
> 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?
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 4215) whose normal position hides the printed surface.
Steve
|
|
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 (...) (22 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
|
|
|
|
