To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.devOpen lugnet.cad.dev in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / 7603
7602  |  7604
Subject: 
Re: MPD spec
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:50:40 GMT
Viewed: 
70 times
  
Bliss wrote:

In lugnet.cad.dev, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
Tore Eriksson wrote:
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:

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.

I disagree with this.

Have you considered that that means that MPD files will no
longer be able to be rendered by LDraw? (or have I
overlooked something?)

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
work that way.

Yes, but it is a single-level subroutine system like in C.
(I complain about it in C, but that is because I am not the
one, who writes the C compilers)

Also, as Tore pointed out already, some programs support
names on FILE lines that are totally invalid as physical
file names.  Although I can see many reasons *not* to
use this capability, I can also see reasons *to* use it.

Even though it makes MPD files impossible to render with
LDraw? (because their content can not be written as actual
files)

Play well,

Jacob
--
The LDraw FAQ:
        http://www.ldraw.org/community/memorial/archive/FAQ/



Message has 1 Reply:
  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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

65 Messages in This Thread:




















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR