Subject:
|
Re: DAT voting page up
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:00:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1519 times
|
| |
|
|
I apologize in advance if I missed the discussion on this, but is the word
"pattern" at the end of lots of the parts really necessary? It seems rather
redundant. Especially in parts that already have "logo" in their names.
Also, maybe the "needs work" tag is a bad idea? I mean, as far as I can tell
from this thread, the goal is to have the most accurate representation of a part
as possible before it gets released in an "official" update; therefore, "needs
work" should not even be an issue. It seems that a part should not be released
until _near_ perfect.
<ducking and covering :) >
--
Patrick Sayre-Little | "Someday we'll look back on all this
wsayreli@polymail.calpoly.edu | and we'll run into a parked car."
http://www.calpoly.edu/~wsayreli | -anonymous
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: DAT voting page up
|
| (...) Well, "Pattern" just sort of became a standard way of identifying a patterned part. "Logo" I think should refer more to a specific type of pattern. Necessary? I don't know. But I seem to be blindly following the convention. (...) In a perfect (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: DAT voting page up
|
| (...) Do you think it is really required to inline it? I was under the impression that the next release of ldlite would address the 3#8 problem. -- Terry K -- (25 years ago, 24-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
97 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
|
|
|
|
