Subject:
|
Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:01:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
17433 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
I think eliminating part-specific subfiles would be a nice file-management
benefit, if nothing else.
|
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 expect that reducing the number of part-specific subfiles would speed up
the part-approval process, always a good thing.
|
I can definitely see that.
| |
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.
|
I totally disagree with this as an argument for MPDs. We already have the s/
directory for subfiles, and said subfiles (subroutines in your analogy) are
available for use by any other parts that want to use them. In your analogy,
MPD subfiles are private functions, and subfiles in s/ are public functions.
Both do have their place, but I’m still not convinced that private subfiles
wouldn’t cause more harm than good in the context of the parts library.
One reason I think it is potentially bad to make subfiles private via MPD is
that even if the subfile is only used for geometry specific to a single part,
having it be private in an MPD makes it unusable for patterned versions of that
part. And just because no patterned versions exist at the time that the MPD
part was created doesn’t mean that they won’t exist in the future.
I can see that MPDs would simplify the authoring of parts that benefit from
sub-files. However, I’m not sure that simplification counters the fact that
they hide said sub-files.
--Travis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
| (...) Sure, doing the right thing in terms of putting the code in the most advantageous location is always worth the effort. (...) Hey, it's all about namespace management, right? As a parts author, I avoid using subfiles unless there is a fairly (...) (15 years ago, 10-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Using MPD syntax in official part files
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
