 | | Re: ~Use and ~Moved
|
| (...) I think this is a Peeron question more than an LDraw question. For me, it would be confusing to have two different numbers in use for what's a functionally identical part. It kind of depends on the direction you're coming from -- as far as (...) (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Re: ~Use and ~Moved
|
| (...) Sorry, I didn't know that, I thought it was an LDraw issue. (...) It's also the id currently in use by TLC and I think it's easier to mimic their system as close as possible, than to reinvent a wheel. (...) Aliasing is the reply. 44237 and (...) (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Re: ~Use and ~Moved
|
| (...) No big deal. :) Peeron uses ~Use tags, LDraw doesn't. (...) I feel that it's unlikely that all fans are going to change their behaviour/data whenever TLC makes a switch. There are too many of us, and we all have different levels of access, (...) (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| | | | | Re: ~Use and ~Moved
|
| (...) But I just don't think there is a need to some big changes. For example LEGO's internal taxonomy is simply horrid (AFAIK). (...) Hm, I don't think so. For example some set references 44237 and I don't have any 44237... Does that mean I can (...) (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
| |
