Subject:
|
Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Mar 2003 23:34:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1406 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin Clague writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Travis Cobbs writes:
> > 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 generic
> > .dat comments. Some of the meta-commands that I have seen listed in this
> > thread don't reflect careful consideration of this fact. (And, while it may
> > not be in this thread, the "0 FILE" MPD meta-command is arguably the worst
> > offender.) When you choose a meta-command, it should be something that is
> > incredibly unlikely to be entered as a standard comment by someone.
> >
> > For better or worse, we're now stuck with the orginal LDraw meta-commands,
> > and effectively stuck with the meta-commands that are already in use (for
> > BFC, MPD, etc). But, if we're going to try to decide how define good
> > behavior for future meta-commands, I think we should come up with something
> > that guarantees that legitimate comments aren't mistaken for 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. It is a bummer.
Kevin & Travis -
These are very good points. As a non-programmer, but someone who has a
general knowledge of the LDraw file format, I think it is a good idea to
separate comments from meta-commands.
Also, talk of a standards body is a good thing. The goal is to create a
board for technical standards that doesn't bog developers down in
unnecessary bureaucracy, but one that does what is needed. We need to have a
definitive LDraw file format spec, and a process for new meta-commands to
get added to the spec. As Larry suggested here:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=8415
the standards body should control the (officially adopted) meta-commands.
Others in the software industry or with more programming/standards
experience may be more articulate than I am on this issue. Just making it
known that I stand behind an effort to organize the LDraw file format spec
and establish a process for improving upon that spec.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
| (...) Why not force comments to be a meta-command like MLcad does with WRITE? Then the only problem you have is new files created with Ledit, and old files which will need to be converted. And Ldraw would still handle them OK. ROSCO (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
| (...) I agree. (...) Nit: we've already *got* an LDraw file format spec. Next item! (...) 'Control' is heavy-handed for my tastes. 'Support', 'endorse', 'coordinate' are all better. All a standards body could do is manage the documentation, and (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
