CAD Development : 8105


CAD / Development / 8105	8104 \| 8106

Subject:	Re: What's up with box3#8.dat? (was: BFC parts with BFC-less primitives)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.cad.dev
Date:	Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:41:00 GMT
Viewed:	843 times

In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee writes: > 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 '-' means in other primitives) but in a parallel set. I'm > happy to use another (more html acceptable) character, but not '-'. I prefer > the underscore '_' character. We can replace box3#8 with a moved to file in > the interim. 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 characters that HTLM would allow us to use? With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen.

Message has 1 Reply:

		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)

Message is in Reply To:

		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)

27 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