| |
Sorry to follow-up my own post, but I did a quick test on MLCAD.
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives, Steve Bliss wrote:
> Of course, if further MLCAD tests shows that it works with a fixed-format 25
> char filename column, then there's less reason to go with the ragged format.
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.
> So it would be nice to be able to produce a PARTS.LST with full descriptions if
> rigid conformance to 80-byte records is not needed.
I prepared a PARTS.LST file with data lines longer and shorter than 80 bytes,
and MLCAD seemed perfectly happy to use the data as presented. In particular,
it could handle longer descriptions without truncating them (I didn't test to
see if it had some longer limit).
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 11-16 primitives?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 11-16 primitives?
|
| (...) 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)
|
22 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
|
|
|
|
