Subject:
|
Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:51:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
16994 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
| |
This is the first time I’ve heard this mentioned. Can someone tell me why
this would be useful? I’m certainly open to the possibility, but only if it
provides a concrete benefit, and I’m not having any luck coming up with what
that benefit would be. It would decrease the number of files in the parts
library, but it would also make any internal files inaccessible to other
parts. And given that the internal files would be in the s subpart directory
anyway, I’m not sure that decreasing the number of files is all that useful.
But I’m certainly open to the possibility that I’ve missed something.
|
I think eliminating part-specific subfiles would be a nice file-management
benefit, if nothing else.
I expect that reducing the number of part-specific subfiles would speed up the
part-approval process, always a good thing.
The most important benefit is that authors would be empowered to fully exploit
the potential of subfiles to speed up authoring, to reduce file size, to reduce
repetitive code.
Think about what software development would be like without
subroutines/functions/methods. You could kind of accomplish the same effect by
writing a number of different programs that all call each other, but it wouldn’t
be as powerful -- and in many cases, wouldn’t work at all. That’s the kind of
difference having MPD part files could have.
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
| (...) I can see that, although a great deal of care would need to be taken to make sure that the MPD sub-files had no chance of being useful in another part. (...) I can definitely see that. (...) I totally disagree with this as an argument for (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
| | | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
| (...) I was about to write the same thing, but you beat me. I think it's a great idea! I can think of two potential problems: 1. Programs that create seams between parts but not models. (Are there any more than L3P?) Depending on how they are (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
| (...) This is the first time I've heard this mentioned. Can someone tell me why this would be useful? I'm certainly open to the possibility, but only if it provides a concrete benefit, and I'm not having any luck coming up with what that benefit (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
68 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
|
|
|
|
