 | | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Sure, but give me a moment. I just noticed the the graphic I added to the text didn't make it into the PDF therefore skewing the TOC. -Orion (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Travis, I could not agree more. I've been tossing around the concepts of an LDraw file format standards body with Tim and others, and IMHO the weakest link in the LDraw file format is that comments and meta-commands use the same record type. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Namespace Pollution is a technical term. It's not meant as an insult, mind you. It refers to a common phenomena in programming, in which things become hard to use because of scope problems, because things named in global scope interfere with (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Neither. You should PUBLICLY support the command and make it known that you are doing so. (...) maybe. (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Thanks, Orion! Would you mind emailing me the plain text, so I can assemble it on a web page for LDraw.org? We can also host the PDF you created on the server for those who prefer it in that format. -Tim (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) OK I'm done. Here's the spec in a more readable format: (URL) didn't change anything, I just cleaned up the text and made a TOC. (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
Having read through this thread, I've seen a lot of good points made. However, it also appears that people haven't really fully thought about the implications of meta-commands. It's very important to realize that meta-commands are presented as (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Ain't that the truth! (...) This is kinda what I was proposing. If you had known that the APP {appname} branch of the namespace was open for any developer to use as he saw fit, but that other commands needed more community buy in, you probably (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
I have invented a 'general purpose' header statement, 'Parent:' that points to the parent[s] of a model file. See example below. I find it very useful when sorting out Datsville submodels, and also in animations. I also use the 'Was:' statement for (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
In thinking about this a bit more, I flashed on a quote from Yoda in one of the Star Wars movies "Hard to see the future is".... I've added some meta-commands to the name space that are certainly specific to LPub and the creation of building (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
Kyle, This seems very pragmatic solution. I like it because there does not seem to be a "one size fits all" solution. Kevin (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I think that, with a little investigation, each command might be identified as 'general purpose' or 'application specific.' I think that haveing the app-specific ones prefixed with the appname (or even 'APP {appname}') isn't such a bad idea. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
I don't think of any new meta-commands as polution. Possibly over-population? I've got mixed feelings about the LTrax solution. It is very hard to know which meta-commands will be usable across many applications. Certainly the original LDraw (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Good initiative! Please see (URL) don't know how official "0 Author:" is, but L3Lab uses it for the titlebar. /Lars (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) 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. (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LTrax Commands (was: Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
I have some LTrax commands. (LTrax is an LDraw compatible "Track Designer") The LTrax are not 'official' LCad commands, but I wish to reserve the keyword. 0 LTrax Position <x y z> 0 LTrax Angle <v> [Degs*] 0 LTrax Object 9Volts\Straight.txt** 0 (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
Hi All, As long as we're updating documentation, I'd like to create a list of the known meta-commands. The process for defining new meta-commands is completely unregulated, which is fine, but as a newcomer to LDRAW compatible CAD tools development, (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Are Meta-commands case-sensitive?
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I agree. (...) LPub and LSynth are case sensetive for all meta-command, including MPD's FILE and NOFILE meta-commands. Kevin Clague (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
