 | | 11-16 primitives? —Mark Kennedy
|
| | | What would be the suggested name for an 11-16 primitive for a cylinder or edge line since 11-16 contains 5 letters and tacking on edge or cyli at the end would give a 9 letter name? (15 years ago, 22-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Philippe Hurbain
|
| | | | | (...) I would suggest avoiding the problem completely by using a 2-4edge + 3-16edge... In other instances the name was shortened: 3-16cone19 --> 3-16co19 11-48ring19 --> 11-48r19 Philo (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) These truncated filenames never went past the LSC, and as such should probably be held. I personally feel that they are inappropriate, but whether or not I think they are appropriate, I believe that it's the LSC's job to determine that. (...) (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Philippe Hurbain
|
| | | | | | (...) Well... imho this should not be an issue at all - if the parts tracker was updated! Philo (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I ditto Phillippe's primary suggestion: use multiple files. It's good for multiple reasons. However, the current standards allow at least 25 characters in the filename, so is there a reason to worry about a 9 character primitive name? Steve (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Philippe Hurbain
|
| | | | Hi Steve, (...) One reason: the Parts Tracker still doesn't like >8 names :( Philo (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Michael Heidemann
|
| | | | (...) This is the status quo now for many months. What action has been taken to solve that problem? To me it seems only to be a little adjustment to some lines of code (but maybe I am wrong). So my question would be: where is the bottleneck that (...) (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Parts Tracker-wise (if I remember right, and if nothing's been changed), there's only one script which needs to be modified to accept 21.3 files instead of 8.3 files. Organizationally, I dunno if there is actually a hold-up. The specifications (...) (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | (...) When the LSC updated the spec to allow 21.3 filenames, I don't think any of us were aware that this would create a problem for PARTS.LST. However, looking at the file, there's a chance that MLCAD will work perfectly well with longer filenames (...) (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Were any other issues anticipated? (...) I did a short test of MLCAD with a modified PARTS.LST. The results were mixed - MLCAD seems OK using an altered-format PARTS.LST file, but re-generating PARTS.LST from MLCAD results in an invalid file. (...) (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Michael Heidemann
|
| | | | (...) If I understand that, this would mean that we could use a new mklist tool and we can start using that long filenames. The possibility to use MLCad for generating PARTS.LST will be away, but this only a little cut. cu mikeheide (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) I could update the mklist sources to work handle filenames with 25 chars I was going to add a quietmode commandline option this weekend anyhow. Should I allow 25 chars as the default, and perhaps include an optional command line arg to (...) (15 years ago, 25-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) That would be good, I think. (...) Can you have two levels? Level One that still shows the warnings, but doesn't stop, and Level Two suppresses all warnings. (...) I'd keep the current line-format for all parts conforming to the 8.3 format, (...) (15 years ago, 27-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | (...) If it's running in Windows, I think a backwards-compatible switch should use the Win32 API to get the short filename (with the ~1 at the end, usually, determined using PathGetShortPath) and use that in place of the long filename. --Travis (15 years ago, 27-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Michael Heidemann
|
| | | | | | (...) Sounds easy, but I think nobody can read that short filenames that would appear in the MLCad list!? cu mikeheide (15 years ago, 27-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | | | (...) For MLCAD it doesn't matter. Steve said that MLCAD worked fine with long filenames inside parts.lst. The only reason to put the short filename in is for other programs that might have problems with the long filename. And as long as mklist is (...) (15 years ago, 27-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) Yeah, I was actually planning a -f to force it to finish and -q for quiet. (...) For now I've added a -8 to make it use the 8.3 format. As per Travis' suggestion it converts to the canonical short form under Windows. The function uppercases (...) (15 years ago, 28-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) My thinking is the 'ragged' format has the least impact - if there are no long part nambers, then the output PARTS.LST would exactly match the classic format, without the user having to know anything about long/short part nambers. Of course, (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | Sorry to follow-up my own post, but I did a quick test on MLCAD. (...) I had a DUH! moment after posting the previous message. If MLCAD can use a ragged format file, of course it can use a fixed-25 format file. DOH. (...) I prepared a PARTS.LST file (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 11-16 primitives? —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | (...) In the mklist beta I posted there's an undocumented -r switch to turn off the ragged edges and make room for 25 char filenames. There's also an undocumented -t to twiddle with the 78 vs 80 character line formats. But there's nothing yet for (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | mklist 1.6beta1 —Don Heyse
|
| | | | (...) I'm assuming the 80 char lines is what you're aiming for here, so based on the 64 char limit on descriptions I started the descriptions on the 16th character of the line. That gives room for a 15 character name and a single space before the (...) (15 years ago, 29-Sep-09, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: mklist 1.6beta1 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Dave! (10 years ago, 22-Dec-13, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| | | | |
