 | | Re: Future extension of dat files?
|
|
(...) Oh, no. That's not what the 'private mailing list' is for at all. I'm sorry you've gotten that impression. :( Earlier this year, a private mailing list was set up, for one express purpose: to put together a proposed organization & charter for (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Codes for New Colors (was: Sand Red Bricks)
|
|
(...) putting in ldliterc.dat (see recent LDLite documentation about that), or for use in any DAT being processed by a program that recognize's the 0 COLOUR statement. Steve 0 Extended colour definitions for ldliterc.dat 0 COLOUR 503 LT_GRAY 8 230 (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dat.ideas)
|
| |
| | Re: Future extension of dat files?
|
|
(...) I know, I'm not Steve, but I think leaving library extensions as they are shouldn't be a problem since you do not regulary open library files, but models. As long as the editors and viewers accept both extensions it should be fine. Just we (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Future extension of dat files?
|
|
(...) No problem. (...) Sounds good! Thanks, Michael. (...) Yeah, .dat from the get-go was too ambiguous, and there's been a need for LDraw files to have their own unique extension for quite some time. The other issue is what to do with parts - from (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Future extension of dat files?
|
|
(...) Thanks, that was it, what I wanted to know. For the next version I'm planning to register this extension instead of .dat. Although I'll still support dat MLCad will write .ldr by default - still allowing the user to specify something else. I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Oct-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
