Subject:
|
Re: More parts feedback
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Mar 1999 22:57:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
860 times
|
| |
|
|
Fredrik Glöckner wrote:
> "John VanZwieten" <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> writes:
>
> > The problem I see with this name is that the tread pieces are in no way
> > similar to the current Technic Link.
>
> This is a good point, yes. I did not consider this.
I disagree completely! The Links and the Tread Links are virtually the same,
except that the tread has an additional component. They are completely
compatible, and are often used (by me, anyway) in concert to achieve various
design goals. I would certainly group them together and I like the naming
scheme as originally proposed.
--Karim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More parts feedback
|
| (...) I don't think you understood what part we were talking about. These are the three parts we do _not_ want to group together: 2637.DAT Technic Link 16L 3711.DAT Technic Link Chain 3873.DAT Technic Link Tread Don't worry, I originally thought the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: More parts feedback
|
| (...) This is a good point, yes. I did not consider this. I originally thought it would be a good idea to use "Technic Link" as the first two words in the description, to make them sort next to each other, then add "Chain" and "Tread" respectively (...) (25 years ago, 4-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
12 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
|
|
|
|
