| |
As many parts authors are aware, LDView produces a warning if it finds more
than
one instance of the CERTIFY option among the BFC commands in one file. For
example, the following will produce a warning on the second BFC command:
0 BFC CERTIFY CCW
1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4-4cyli.dat
0 BFC CERTIFY INVERTNEXT
1 16 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 .5 0 0 0 1 4-4cyli.dat
The reason that LDView does this is because the CERTIFY option is intended as a
way of declaring a file BFC-compliant by simply placing a "0 BFC CERTIFY"
command near the top of the file. Repititions are redundant.
Having said that, the above code is perfectly OK based on the current version
of
the BFC spec. In fact, two lines in a row that simply say "0 BFC CERTIFY" are
also technically allowed. LDView does tag this as a warning and not an error,
but the presence of this warning is causing reviewers on the parts tracker to
put holds on files.
This gets further complicated by the fact that the above example is actually
very similar (if not identical) to DAT code produced by MLCad. So people
editing files in MLCad end up with their BFC commands looking like that.
So, my question is this: should I remove this warning from LDView for commands
that contain options in addition to CERTIFY and CW/CCW? I definitely think
that
it's appropriate to warn when multiple CERTIFY commands occur all by
themselves;
the only thing I'm not sure about is what to do about the other ones.
Please let me know what you think. Since LDView 3.1 was just released this
week, it might be a while before any changes are released, but I would like to
know if there's a consensus one way or the other.
--Travis
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> So, my question is this: should I remove this warning from LDView for commands
> that contain options in addition to CERTIFY and CW/CCW? I definitely think that
> it's appropriate to warn when multiple CERTIFY commands occur all by themselves;
> the only thing I'm not sure about is what to do about the other ones.
The unreleased L3P and L3Lab also spit out these warnings.
Here are all BFC warnings:
"BFC CERTIFY already met"
the second time CERTIFY is met
"BFC NOCERTIFY already met"
the second time NOCERTIFY is met
"Already BFC certified implicitly"
if CERTIFY is met later and e.g. "0 BFC CW" is already met
"No BFC options specified"
if just "0 BFC" is met
"Only one BFC option from a group allowed"
if CLIP and NOCLIP (or CW and CCW) are specified together
"NOCERTIFY must appear alone"
"BFC CERTIFY must appear before the first operational command-line"
"BFC NOCERTIFY must appear before the first operational command-line"
"This BFC is ignored because no BFC appeared before the first operational command-line"
I guess these are self-explanatory
/Lars
|
|
|
