| |
Chris Dee wrote:
| |
| |
I think we should create a 1-1edge, and a 1-2edge as aliases for 4-4edge and
2-4edge (respectively), so we have all of them available in least terms.
|
I don’t see the benefit from this - the naming convention is well established
and existing part authors know how to work with it. Is it that hard to learn?
|
It’s not really that hard, but my mind recoils at a senseless inconsistency, and
this, and the following, are it. Note that I suggested an alias, not move, and
certainly not removing the existing names.
| |
| |
Also, the names aren’t quite consistent: 4-4edge should have a name line
added: • “0 Circle 1.0”. 5-8edge should be renamed from “Edge 0.625” to
“Circle 0.625”.
|
Yes - as I have responded by email, this is historical. The “descriptions” of
primitives serve no other purpose than internal documentation - they’re not
surfaced to the Parts List, for example.
|
Yes, but they may well be surfaced to other software -- and probably should be.
I wouldn’t have noticed if I didn’t have a piece of software (soon to be posted)
that displayed the name of 4-4edge.dat.
http://www.ldraw.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=45 says
that if the first line in the file is a 0 line, then that gives the name of the
model “(at least for parts files)”. Is it incorrect to consider primitives a
strange sort of part file?
| |
For the sake of tidiness and for
consistency with the other *edge.dat primitive that do have headers, I have
added a revised 5-8edge.dat file to the Parts Tracker.
|
Great, but 4-4 is the one I was really worried about, not 5-8. I realize this
is pedantic, but I decided to start with the trivial, and work my way up to the
more complex.
duplicating this?
Sorry, my bad; somehow I managed to miss reading the introduction to the
section.
| |
Chris Dee (Parts Tracker admin and Primitives Reference author)
|
And many thanks for your good work -- I didn’t realize the Prim Reference was
your work.
-=- James Mastros
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) The consistency is in the basic four fractions: 1-4, 2-4, 3-4, 4-4. The other measures are (more or less) deliberate inconsistencies to name files that don't fit the basic standard. (...) Yes, that would be an incorrect consideration. Part (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
| | | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) I missed responding to this one specific point. In general, aliases amongst the primitives would be a bad thing. They would primarily add more files to an already too-large list of primitives, and would only provide duplicate function. In this (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: N-Fedge primitives
|
| (...) Great - we are always looking for constructive help. (...) I don't see the benefit from this - the naming convention is well established and existing part authors know how to work with it. Is it that hard to learn? (...) Yes - as I have (...) (20 years ago, 8-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
