 | | Re: L3P user primitive substitution —Steve Bliss
|
| | | Dear All, Currently, there are a number of files on the Parts Tracker which include embedded POV-Ray, using the 0 L3P meta-statement. I've been emailing with Lars, Paul and Chris about some concerns I have with this approach. Basically, before we (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: L3P user primitive substitution —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | (...) Just a thought. If the POVRAY (or whatever) sections get too big, would it make sense to add 0 INCLUDE meta-command so the LDRAW only programs don't waste time parsing? Then the POV specific versions could be distributed separately from the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: L3P user primitive substitution —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) In general, that's an interesting thought. But in this case, I don't think it's necessary - POV already has an include statement (IIRC). Of course, allowing the use of such a statement raises another issue: is it alright to distribute (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: L3P user primitive substitution —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | (...) Well yes, but I wasn't just thinking about POV. I thought that was your point in changing the syntax. The 0 INCLUDE meta-command could be used to install custom colors much like the ldliterc.dat file. I'm sure there are plenty of other non-POV (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: L3P user primitive substitution —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) [snip] (...) [snap] (...) Nod, right. INCLUDE has been mentioned before, in other contexts, and I'm generally in favor of it. But I'd rather discuss that in a separate thread - IF[N]DEF/ELSE/ENDIF wouldn't depend on INCLUDE. (although, for (...) (23 years ago, 19-Dec-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: L3P user primitive substitution —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | Since there hasn't been discussion of this topic, and more than two weeks have elapsed, can we assume that: A) The proposed revision is acceptable B) The proposed revision is un-acceptable C) No one knows LMKWYT, Steve (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: L3P user primitive substitution —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | (...) C! But it does not seem completely unacceptable to me. Play well, Jacob (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: L3P user primitive substitution —Chuck Sommerville
|
| | | | (...) A: I like it. -Chuck (23 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
