 | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Dean Earley
|
| | | (...) Surely the very fact it is .ldr instead of .dat differentiates it from the lego parts. MLCad doesn't recognise 3010.ldr as a valid part, and it allows both blah.dat and blah.ldr in the same mpd file. (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) No, it doesn't. (...) MLCad has no such restriction - that restriction is put in place by mklist. Go ahead - create parts/3010.LDR, edit parts.lst, add 3010.LDR and a description, it will magically appear in MLCad and be usable just as any (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Dean Earley
|
| | | | (...) But that DOES differentiate between .dat and .ldr by the very fact it has the extension in parts.lst. If it didn't, 3010.dat and 3010.ldr would be interchangeable everywhere. This means that 3010.dat is NOT the same as 3010.ldr but L3P appears (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | (...) The point is that it is not MLCad which differentiates, it is mklist. Tim (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Dean Earley
|
| | | | | | (...) I read Steve's email as saying that they shouldn't and that the extension doesn't matter but IMO it does. Rereading it, it sounds like the extension does matter but that it shouldn't be used to identify the type of file which I agree with. /me (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Tim David
|
| | | | | | (...) Surely the extension is entirely to identify the type of file, otherwise they would be irrelevant? While I understand that .dat is a widely used extension it would be foolish if any change was to .ldr (for parts), another extension would make (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | | | --SNIP-- (...) IMO the best solution would be to have a magic number at the start of the parts. eg. 0 LDP or something. That way the 'partness' of each part would be quicly verified merely be reading the first five bytes of the file regardless of (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: L3P-Bug using LGEO —Travis Cobbs
|
| | | | (...) I don't think L3P pays any attention to parts.lst. To be honest, I don't think that it should. It's not an editor that's expected to give you a list of parts available for use. (And to be honest, I think that parts.lst is a generally bad idea, (...) (19 years ago, 14-Nov-05, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
