 | | Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) : 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?)
|
|
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?)
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
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?)
|
|
(...) 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?)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
