Subject:
|
Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:12:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1483 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dan Boger writes:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 06:49:18PM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin Clague writes:
> >
> > > Would the authors of LDraw compatible applications please list the
> > > meta-commands they have created? I will compile the list of applications
> > > and the meta-commands they define.
> >
> > One thing that I think would help reduce namespace pollution is if everyone
> > did what LTrax did... prefix the command with the app name for uniqueness.
> > Not a perfect solution, of course.
>
> except that if you do that, it discourages cross-tool commands. If I'm
> writing FooCAD, and I want to implement one of the LTrax commands,
> should I make a new command '0 FooCad xxxx'? should I secretly support
> the '0 LTrax xxxx'?
If you write FooCad, don't regard LTrax as a program, but rather a family of
standard meta-commands. But as the "owner" of that family, I may change the
spec's and thus make FooCAD incompatible...
When it comes to LTrax - I know you most likely mentioned LTrax just as an
example - when it comes to LTrax, the syntax is still under development.
When it comes to more generic meta-commands, such as ROTATE, TRANSLATE, and
so on, I think it is so cross-tool that it's better to not have a specific
tool prefix. Hmm, I'm getting tired, wonder if anyone understands what I'm
trying to say...
What I think I try to say is that some meta-statements, like "Author:" is
very official and very staticly specified, other are less official and may
still under development.
> I'm not sure what the best answer here is. Maybe aliasing (internally)
> '0 LTrax xxxx' to '0 FooCAD xxxx' does make sense?
Uhmm, not in the LTrax case - unless you plan to enhance the syntax.
/Tore
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
| (...) except that if you do that, it discourages cross-tool commands. If I'm writing FooCAD, and I want to implement one of the LTrax commands, should I make a new command '0 FooCad xxxx'? should I secretly support the '0 LTrax xxxx'? I'm not sure (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
154 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
