Subject:
|
Re: Possible (minor) contradiction in the specs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:28:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
33342 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Roland Melkert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Not sure if this is the correct group for this, but I was wondering about a
> possible contradiction in the specs.
>
> I started working on a translation of my LD4DStudio renderer in C++ in means of
> a refresher course. While starting this up I decided to try and create a ldraw
> file loading implementation as close to the standard as possible.
>
> So while setting up the comment / meta handling stuff I read in the 1.0.0 specs
> comments are preferred to start with "0 //" (old way depreciated), But when
> gathering all meta line keywords I noticed the extension documents are using
> comments without the // all the time.
>
> Just something I noticed.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Roland
If by "extension documents" you mean the (sub-)specifications referred to from
the main 1.0.0 spec document (ie this page http://www.ldraw.org/Article218.html)
there is no contradiction as the referenced specs were ratified BEFORE the main
1.0.0 spec (they had to be, otherwise the main spec would have referred to
non-ratified documents) and so were ratified against the prior 0.27 spec. It's
the classic chicken-and-egg situation - can't ratify the main spec without the
referenced specs being ratified, but the referenced specs need the main spec to
be ratified so they can conform to it!
William Howard
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Possible (minor) contradiction in the specs
|
| Hi all, Not sure if this is the correct group for this, but I was wondering about a possible contradiction in the specs. I started working on a translation of my LD4DStudio renderer in C++ in means of a refresher course. While starting this up I (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jun-10, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
