Subject:
|
Re: New primitive box3-2.dat (was Re: What's up with box3#8.dat?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:18:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1031 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Niels Karsdorp writes:
> 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 upload this new primitive to the parts tracker?
>
> Niels
Patience please - it's the holiday season and some of us have families to
consider.
I was hoping to get more replies to http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=8111
where I explained the naming convention as currently implemented. So, if no-one
is bothered, I'll change box3#8p.dat to box3u8p.dat. There's already a BFC'd
version on the PT, but it cannot be reviewed due to the # in the filename
generating a bad URL to the ptdetail page generator.
Your suggestion of box3-2.dat is insufficiently specific as it does not
indicate the relationship between the 3 drawn faces, nor that between the
missing lines.
If the two missing lines are parallel, then I prefer box3u2p.dat as that would
follow the convention.
And, could you please refrain from referring to "box3#8.dat" - this does not
exist and I think mentioning it without the p is compounding the confusion -
the primitive we've been discussing is "box3#8p.dat".
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
