 | | Time for BFC overhaul?
|
|
Now that MLCad is supporting BFC, should we begin overhauling the parts database to take advantage of this? I'd be interested in working on this for a while. What is the status of the meta-command discussion? How close are we to closure? -John Van (25 years ago, 29-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
|
(...) Oh, good! Fresh blood. :) I've uploaded a BFC-test file with the part files for a few bricks, and the primitives needed to support them. Anyone who wants to play with these files can get them from (URL). My suggestion: make a second (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
|
(...) And you like that don't you ? ;) If any one doesn't ! Don't read the rest of the mail ! (...) There we go again ! I saw this coming ! Why the hack do you assume things are stable as long as you agree with the supposed current status of them ? (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
|
(...) In lugnet.cad.dev, Rui Martins wrote: (...) I'm glad I didn't let you down. ;) (...) Because it's easier than rereading the entire thread of 83 messages where we went through all this before. Seriously. But I will attempt to go through that (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
|
(...) Didn't answer the question, but moving on. (...) That's good to know. (...) Yes, but the proposed standard doesn't list the several options for a specific issue thta asn't been agreed iet. List the options, that's my point, because if you (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
