Subject:
|
Re: Part naming question for different versions of the same part
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:20:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
669 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tony Hafner wrote:
> Part 4066 is a Duplo 1x2x2 brick. I'm wondering primarily about naming
> conventions.
>
> This part comes in two versions. The newer version allows a Duplo
> top-center stud to bind in the center, and the old one doesn't (it has a
> supporting structure in the way).
>
> Naming conventions for parts that have changed over time aren't totally
> consistent, so I'm wondering what the ideal solution is:
> Older one: 4066a.dat: Duplo Brick 1 x 2 x 2 Type 1
> Newer one: 4066b.dat: Duplo Brick 1 x 2 x 2 Type 2
> or:
> Older one: 4066.dat: Duplo Brick 1 x 2 x 2
> Newer one: 4066b.dat: Duplo Brick 1 x 2 x 2 with Center Stud Gap
> or:
> Older one: 4066a.dat: Duplo Brick 1 x 2 x 2 old
> Newer one: 4066b.dat: Duplo Brick 1 x 2 x 2 new
> or:
> Only bother with the newer one, since it's functionally just plain
> better and nobody cares about Duplo anyway.
> or:
> Some mix of the above? Something else entirely?
I'd go for either option #1 or #3. In option #2, it seems like the name
for 4066b.dat is misleading, because the difference between the parts is
(relatively) minor.
And I'd actually lean toward #3, because the difference is in the
substructure, and we *generally* don't track substructure changes. In
this case, it's actually a functional difference, so it might be worth
capturing. Your choice.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
2 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
