 | | BFC parts with BFC-less primitives —Niels Karsdorp
|
| | | Hello, I have just found out all about BFC and how to make parts BFC compliant (yes, I know, I should have found that out earlier ;-). Most of the parts I submitted to the parts tracker are not reviewed, yet (not complainig about that), so I thought (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | (...) The primitives are slowly being made BFC compliant (and given meaningful headers) but if you have the time and inclination to do any of those that are not already done (or waiting on the Parts Tracker) please do so. Please email the fixed (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives —Ildefonso Junior Zanette
|
| | | | | | (...) Hi, I made all the remaining primitives BFC compliant with the help of one program that I created: (URL) I need to find some time to fix some bugs and release it to the community. Zanette. (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | (...) Can we (Steve or I) have them for the Parts Tracker and ultimate release into the official library? Chris (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | | (...) All primitives really should be BFC'ed first... Strictly speaking you cannot certify a part unless all references are certified, but see (URL) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Tony Hafner
|
| | | | I did a text search on all the dat files in my parts and subparts folder, and found that the "box3#8.dat" primitive isn't actually referenced by anything else. And if I try to download it from ldraw.org's official files link, I get nothing. Has this (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Chris Dee
|
| | | | (...) Not sure how you were searching, but this primitive is used by plenty of parts 2400.dat 2554.dat 2865.dat 2871.dat ..... The file is in the ldraw.org official library, but if you're trying to use the URL like (URL) then you will fail due to (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Kyle McDonald
|
| | | | | We should consider renaming this to get around this limitation. More programs and applets may start tring to access the files through URLS in the future. Who knows. -Kyle (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Niels Karsdorp
|
| | | | | | (...) I'll think about box3-8 or something (box with 3 sides, missing 8 lines) I need a similar primitive with all edges along the three sides. That could be named box3-2 (box with 3 sides, missing 2 lines) Niels (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | (...) Manfred Moolhuysen developed this naming convention and posted (probably to the old lcad list) in May 1998, but I cannot locate a copy right now. IIRC the # was intended to indicate that the missing edges were not adjacent (which is what the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | | | | | (...) You R-ed C, Chris. Althought is't more correct to say that the missing edges are not *all* adjacent. But I'm a bit afraid that the dash and underscore charcters are to similar and could easely lead to confusion. Are there any other acceptable (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes - I think the original intent of # was 'in two parallel groups'. How about '='? That will work in a URL. It is almost like two '-'s. Chris (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) It would have been a nice character, but = is not allowed under MS-DOS The range of special characters possible with MS-DOS are: ! @ # $ % ^ & ( ) - _ { } : ' Which of these are HTLM friendly also ? With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen. (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) HTML can handle anything. So can HTTP, but of the characters listed above, I think it is only '-' and '_' which don't need special treatment. The next level of problems is that the parts tracker is implemented in Perl and running on a Unix (...) (22 years ago, 9-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) How about we stick with alphanumerics (case-insensitive) and '-' for now? We can explore other characters over time, if it becomes necessary. More likely, we'll (eventually) leave the 8.3 filename format behind. :\ Steve (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'd have to look at the code again, but there's no reason why it couldn't deal with anything :) (22 years ago, 10-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) True, but it'd probably be better to restrict ourselves to a limited set of characters that are well-supported in file and path names on different OS's and protocols. But you already knew that, right? ;) Steve (22 years ago, 11-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | | | (...) In another branch of this thread it was my understanding that we had agreement on renaming box3#8p.dat to box3u8p.dat. Chris (22 years ago, 11-Jan-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Niels Karsdorp
|
| | | | | | (...) Another suggestion is using the dash '-' and have an additional letter give some more information. a = adjacent p = parallel ... (more?) Niels (22 years ago, 21-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | (...) There already is a 'p' suffix meaning parallel - the primitive is actually named box3#8p.dat. I found the original text from Manfred (dated 16Oct1998) copied here with minor spelling corrections - note that Manfred uses the word 'rib' for (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Niels Karsdorp
|
| | | | | | (...) : is not ok for MS-DOS! (It is used to after the drive name, like C: (...) Sound good to me Niels (22 years ago, 21-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | New primitive box3-2.dat (was Re: What's up with box3#8.dat?) —Niels Karsdorp
|
| | | | | | Still no answer on the box primitive naming conventions. For my spoked wheels I needed a new primitive, like the box3#8.dat but with all adjecent edges. I named it box3-2.dat (Box, 3 faces drawn, 2 edges left out), but how should I name it so I can (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New primitive box3-2.dat (was Re: What's up with box3#8.dat?) —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | (...) Patience please - it's the holiday season and some of us have families to consider. I was hoping to get more replies to (URL) I explained the naming convention as currently implemented. So, if no-one is bothered, I'll change box3#8p.dat to (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New primitive box3-2.dat (was Re: What's up with box3#8.dat?) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | Chris, I'm alright with the 'u' convention. It'd be wicked cool if someone sat down and figured out all the possible box configurations (there can't be *that* many of them), so we could have a clearer idea of what we're trying to describe. Then (...) (22 years ago, 30-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New primitive box3-2.dat (was Re: What's up with box3#8.dat?) —Niels Karsdorp
|
| | | | | | (...) I'll have patience. These dull and rainy holidays in the Netherlands are ideal to do some part authoring ;-) Yes I have families to consider, too. My grandparents celebrated their 84th and 85th birthdays. And I could borrow some old parts my (...) (22 years ago, 30-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New primitive box3-2.dat (was Re: What's up with box3#8.dat?) —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | (...) I have moved the box3#8p.dat currently on the Parts Tracker to box3u8p.dat and the new primitive is available to review at (URL) ~Moved to file will need special attention by Steve and I as it is not accessible through the review machanism, (...) (22 years ago, 30-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives) —Tony Hafner
|
| | | | (...) Hm, it's possible that the search I used suffered from a similar problem to that of the URL. I stand corrected- thanks! -- Tony Hafner www.hafhead.com (22 years ago, 19-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
