 | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) I think so, too. I see MPD files almost like ZIP files. I know that there are differences, like inside WinZip you can generally only view standalone files without unzipping them first. (The reason I reignited this thread was I wanted to make (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Me too. And originally, you actually had to split a MPD file before you could view the contents. I would prefer that we stick to this way of treating MPD files as if they are splitted/unpacked before their content is processed. (...) That is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) I disagree with this. Or, if we keep this approach for MPD, I'll want another standard language extension for embedding "macros" in LDraw files. I tend to view (and use) FILEs in MPD files as "subroutines", and I'd prefer they were designed to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Have you considered that that means that MPD files will no longer be able to be rendered by LDraw? (or have I overlooked something?) (...) Yes, but it is a single-level subroutine system like in C. (I complain about it in C, but that is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) No, I hadn't. I was taking the view that MPD files are not compatible with LDraw, and I was not too concerned with making them 'more compatible'. See my other recent message for a suggested way to standardize both "LDraw-ready" and "never (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
