 | | Re: BFC inversion... —Kyle McDonald
| | | | (...) Also, is it now standard to repeat the 'CERTIFY' keyword on every BFC line? I thought CERTIFY was only useful once at the beginning of the file? I've been out of the loop, did I miss something? -Kyle (20 years ago, 5-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: BFC inversion... —Dave Schuler
| | | | | | (...) If so, then I missed it too (which is entirely possible!) I've never used CERTIFY at the beginning of a file, and TMK it's never been a problem. I use "BFC INVERTNEXT" where necessary, but no blanket CERTIFY statement. Is the inclusion of the (...) (20 years ago, 5-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: BFC inversion... —Steve Bliss
| | | | | (...) No it isn't. (...) You are correct. CERTIFY, according to the BFC spec, is only allowed once in the file, before the first 'executable' line, on the very first BFC meta-statement. In fact, CERTIFY is *required* on that line. Steve (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: BFC inversion... —Travis Cobbs
| | | | | (...) It may be required by the part tracker, but it isn't required by the BFC spec. The spec specifically says that the first instance of any BFC command in a file implicitly turns on BFC certification in the file (unless of course it's a 0 BFC (...) (20 years ago, 6-Oct-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | | |
