 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Still discussing (URL). Here's another syntactical approach to BFC. Like it, hate it, let us know what you think. Have a single 0 BFC statement, which allows specifications of various options/settings. Something like: 0 BFC ( CERTIFY | NOCERTIFY | (...) (25 years ago, 17-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve: (...) [...] It is definitely a useable option. How will the specification document look then? If it is easier to read that way, then you have one proponent for that solution. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- (...) (25 years ago, 19-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) There are two possibilities for updating the document with this approach: 1. Just change the syntax expressions, and modify any syntax-specific references. This would be the low-impact approach, with only cosmetic changes. 2. Rework the (...) (25 years ago, 19-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss wrote: Still discussing (URL). I posted a new version, with the short-form syntax, to (URL) Comments? Steve (25 years ago, 25-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve: (...) My comments/changes will be preceded by a "J". [...] Subfile. A DAT file referenced from another file, via a linetype 1 command. Or any file which is lower in the file-reference tree than the current file. J Or any file which is the (...) (25 years ago, 25-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) Er, OK. I'll put that in, but it seems redundant. (...) It means that I stuffed in the pseudo-code without rewriting the syntax-specific sections. :( Steve (25 years ago, 27-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
