Subject:
|
Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Oct 1999 22:41:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
793 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <37f8c4a9.238320530@lugnet.com>...
> Why not recognize it all ways:
>
> 0 FACE ACW
> 0 FACE ANTICLOCKWISE
Well, I have nothing against anticlockwise, but it's redundant. Seeing ACW
where one expects CW or CCW may confuse some people. I checked the
dictionary because I honestly didn't think Webster would have it (but it
did...though I've never once heard it used before).
-Gary
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Interpreting the proposed FACE meta-command
|
| (...) Why not recognize it all ways: 0 FACE ACW 0 FACE ANTICLOCKWISE 0 FACE CCW 0 FACE CLOCKWISE 0 FACE COUNTERCLOCKWISE 0 FACE CW 0 FACE DOUBLESIDED 0 FACE DS 0 FACE UNKNOWN This adds a bit to the parser, but not so much. The recommended standard (...) (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
56 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
