| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Erik Olson wrote:
> I see now that your problem is difficult to solve. Sorry I tried to put it
> into a nutshell, Steve.
No big deal. I just wasn't sure which nut you were shelling. :)
> My preference would be to design an auxiliary file
> for each case, and markup the LDRAW part in a very general way, so that
> future programs could address the same problem (replacing curvature, studs
> on/off) in their own way. Then there would not have to be a subpart, and
> real but alternate LDRAW lines wouldn't have to be hidden in a comment.
Hmm. The problem is that there would be a lot of cases - we've already
got a way to handle general stuff (by creating 'primitive' files).
And my (general) preference is to not have any more auxiliary files than
necessary - we're already getting too many files in the library.
[snipped example]
> I'm sure I'm not the first one to propose a marking-up extension.....
Actually, I think you are the first. :)
It's an interesting idea, with a lot of power. So much that my head is
starting to hurt. ;)
> On namespace, yes, a namespace would mean a separate file library containing
> the same part names. It may be that a certain namespace is only enabled
> during printing, or when exporting to a renderer.
>
> Namespaces do not solve your problem, where you want abilities like a
> preprocessor macro, and one file.
Right.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code? [DAT]
|
| I see now that your problem is difficult to solve. Sorry I tried to put it into a nutshell, Steve. My preference would be to design an auxiliary file for each case, and markup the LDRAW part in a very general way, so that future programs could (...) (22 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
