Subject:
|
Re: Time for BFC overhaul?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:05:43 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Rui.Martins@link.%saynotospam%pt
|
Viewed:
|
1778 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.cad.dev, John VanZwieten wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Oh, good! Fresh blood. :)
And you like that don't you ? ;)
If any one doesn't !
Don't read the rest of the mail !
> [...SNIP...]
> > What is the status of the meta-command discussion? How close are we to
> > closure?
>
> I feel that we are very close to closure. The open issues listed in the
> BFC proposal have more to do with cleaning up the document than with
> determining the BFC language and function. The only language-related
> issue is whether to keep the CERTIFY tag or throw it out.
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 ?
Remember this is just my opinion, and I' NOT trying to step on anyone
toes, yours included (Steve Bliss).
REMEMBER,
I apreciate or your and your dedication to lego and the lego comunity !
---[Flame Mode On]---
Another technic you use (either unconsciously or NOT) is to just ignore
other peoples mail, when they don't exactly fit on your ideias.
By this I mean:
Sometime ago, last year, you also made an afirmation similar to the one
in this mail, and I replyed to you and the group, with a mail saying
some of the issues that were NOT closed or agreed by all.
I don't remember you (or anyone else) replying to it.
So time passes, people forget, but I have strong convictions, wich doesn't
allow me to forget.
Also your work on parts with the "finished" BFC spec are also a way to
take your ideia ahead.
You have done a similar thing with the actual spec you wrote.
This is NOT saying that someone shouldn't write a spec, I mean that you
shouldn't force the ideias that where not agreed in the spec.
I know that any one can say they don't agree with it, but once it's
written it is a lot more dificult to change.
You accept ideias from others as long as they don't clash with yours !
As I said before, I don't know if do this unconsciously, or if it's just
your personality, but you should make some retrospective.
[Flame Mode Off]
Know I know I will become the black sheep !
But I had to say this at least once. Sorry
I' NOT a psicanalist ! 8)
After all this,
maybe someone want's to say exactly the same things about me !
we never now, maybe I'm some kind of maniac ! ;)
never the less I apreciate yours and every body elses efforts to improve
our lego world.
I can be obviously greatly mistaken, maybe it's my perspective over here.
Who knows !
Maybe I'm just mad !
I'm only against some of your actions, and NOT against you !
P.S.
Please reply, everyone who want's to, but don't start a flame war, that
was not the intent.
and Remember, every decision we make on the format, if wrong, it will
hurt us all in the end.
Rui Martins
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
5 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
|
|
|
|
