CAD Development : 8421


CAD / Development / 8421

Re: Calling all Meta-commands —Tim Courtney

(...) Yes. (...) I think we'll see coming out of this discussion something that will prevent the meta-command chaos we've seen for the past years. No one here is talking about a new file format, or new version of a spec - yet. First we need to fully (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky

(...) I agree the backward compatibility is good, to a point. This is especially true for the parts library. Too many times we refuse to fix something or extend the file spec (e.g. new colors not able to be represented by existing color numbers) (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) While a noble proposal in spirit, I strongly feel we need to organize what we have before taking that radical of a step forward. Once we've defined the current LDraw format spec and all meta-commands, a standards body can work at defining a (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky

(...) Consider this my volunteer for this standards body. I can also work on an informal list of META commands. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Cool. Kevin started the call for meta-commands, and I believe he plans to assemble them into a list/document. If you want to help with that, I suggest you email him. -Tim (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kevin Clague

(...) Hi Orion, Here is my take on the current state of LDraw related tools and parts library. There are a few documents that sketch out the basic mechanics of what we use today, but the real standards are the programs that we have that use them. We (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin Clague writes: Mucho Snippo. (...) Excellent points, Kevin! All - I can second everything Kevin is saying here. Through many private exchanges, and by meeting Kevin at BricksWest, I've come to understand his position on this (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky

In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) I think we need to put a lock on the creation of any new commands until we can properly document the existing commands. This will prevent the overlap of functionality. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) I agree. Establishing such a lock means however we need to move rather quickly on a standards body. I know there are others like Steve and Larry who will want to weigh in on this, but they're busy this weekend. I'm traveling up to Steve's next (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger

Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>: (...) I disagree. How can you prevent the various programmers from adding new functionality to their software? Why should development on all these tools halt until the non-existent committee figure out what's (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky

(...) No, I'm saying that if anyone is thinking about adding a meta-command they need to, at the very least, post what they plan to add so that the community can comment and ultimatly say yea or nay. Once the committee us up a running thay will take (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger

(...) the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to me. The community (or the "board") could suggest names, and keep track of what's out there - but a "yea or nay" power seems excessive. How, exactly, do you propose you enforce this "nay"? I (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky

(...) Point taken, but I still think developers should discuss what they want to add with LDraw.org and Lugnet.cad.dev so that they don't add something that's already been added or being developed. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger

(...) I agree that the discussion should take place - I'm just worried about the "regulation" part. Dan (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss

(...) I really agree with Dan on this point. As I mentioned in another message, a standards body could certainly come up with suggestions for standard commands, but they wouldn't have any power of enforcement. About the only thing ldraw.org could[1] (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Very good point. In my conversations with a few semi-outsiders to the LDraw community, they believed systems could (or should, I see your [1] and rase you that) be established to encourage participation and compliance, but could not/should not (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Paul Gyugyi

But, isn't that more-or-less exactly what happens with the parts library? (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss

(...) Not really. The important thing with the parts library is that files are accepted and added the distribution file. We don't even have a '0 Official' any more - now it's '0 LDRAW_ORG'. I was envisioning the 'LDraw.org Compatible' program to be (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) LDraw compatible, or LDraw.org compatible? ;-) You made a distinction before -- are you using the same metric now as well? Just curious. -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss

(...) Sorry, 'LDraw.org-compatible programs'. Which is poor terminology, I think. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Travis Cobbs

(...) I agree. I don't think a program can be "compatible" with an organization. It can be "certified" by one, though: LDraw.org-Certified. Of course, this might have stronger implications than LDraw.org-compatible. On the other hand, maybe that's a (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Certified does sound better in that context, and I think certification could be a good thing. We should figure out how best to frame it, but I think it would add to the strength and usefulness of LDraw.org as a central resource for all of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky

In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) The point of setting an 'LDraw.org Compatible' format would be to set the framework of LDraw files, not to restrict what can be in LDraw files. If a programmer wants to implement thier (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Exactly. -Tim (22 years ago, 23-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) I agree 100%. -Tim (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Ross Crawford

(...) No, I think the intention is to create an official set of meta-commands, which official software should recognise and/or implement. The important point being that any file containing non-ratified commands will not make it into the official (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kyle McDonald

(...) Well this was one of the reasons behind my original suggestion. (This thread sure did take off while I was away skiing this weekend.) I suggested that a new meta command group be made today, albeit before the creation of a standards body, so (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) I disagree. Let's stick with the current method of meta-commands until a standards body officially determines the syntax of future generation commands. No hold on anything, innovation can continue (just in the same disorganized fashion it (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kyle McDonald

(...) That's fine also. I was only offering a possible way to avoid taking even more useful options away from the standards commitee. I don't think it would be too much to ask that new commands all be prefixed with 'UNOFF' or 'UNOFFICIAL'. It of (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Understood. I think we need to focus on creating legitimacy for making decisions on standards before actually making decisions on standards. ;-) (...) That's a resonable request. Here's some thoughts -- I think the standards body will be (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss

(...) Depends on how open or closed the SB is. I think there's a place for part authors and users as well as developers. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) I believe Lar mad the case that the SB can/should include people from all camps. I for the most part agree, because we need perspectives from the various types of people who create [elements of] and use this system. -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky

In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) To some extent the parts library will have to be goverened by the file spec. The most glaring issues for this seem to be Part File naming and BFC complience. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger

(...) hmmm... how is file naming part of the spec? the spec says it's 8.3, but what else would it say? (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky

(...) See this web page: (URL) this one: (URL) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Yes, of course the spec document would govern it. What I was more referring to was bodies of people and processes. -Tim (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kevin Clague

(...) I don't see how a lock is practical. We don't even have an official standards body yet. I don't know how you would enforce it any way. My goal in making the call was to document what is there, so that people: a) don't produce name space (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Right. Sorry -- my support of that was on a quick response, brain fart I suppose. (...) Good goals we should all focus on. (...) Yup, not the first time. I do think we should work through this, stay on task, and get it right this time though. (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Travis Cobbs

(...) Having read the other replies to this post, I feel that--no matter how well-intentioned--putting a lock on new meta-commands is both wrong and impractical. The simple fact is that all LDraw-based development is done voluntarily. As such, it's (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky

In lugnet.cad.dev, Travis Cobbs writes: <snip> (...) I like this suggestion a lot. It solves most of the problems we've been discussing about namespace pollution. -Orion (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Right. While a lock would be well meant, it just isn't the right approach. (...) Yep. (...) Not selfish in the least, I don't think. If you're doing this for your own enjoyment, why should you be expected to get a group opinion before adding (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Travis Cobbs

(...) The main reason I suggested the braces is that they make it basically impossible for the text to show up at the beginning of a standard comment line. In this case, they're probably unnecessary, since META isn't exactly a common word. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) I understand the point, but yep - my line of thinking was what you just said, META isn't that common. (...) Ok. (...) Yeah. Well, the suggestion is something new - which ultimately should be considered by a standards body, and not decided upon (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss

(...) Tim, I've been reading this thread, and you keep mentioning this 'Steve' person. 'Steve this' and 'Steve that'. I must have gone through 100 messages by now, and no 'Steve' has shown up. I'm beginning to suspect you are imagining this 'Steve' (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) ROFL!!! :-) -Tim PS - Steve, while you posted quite a bit all at once, this isn't quite the "shock and awe" I was expecting. ;-) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss

(...) I was trying to refrain from posting too many messages on issues that had already been cleared up. Besides, I'm trying to collect my thoughts on the SB for a single post. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Orion Pobursky

(...) Remember that it is in the current specification that all META-commands be uppercase. I don't know many people that write with caps-lock on but I'm sure it won't happen enough to be a problem. -Orion (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger

(...) besides, if we add a new linetype, we're breaking LDRAW.EXE and LEDIT.EXE, wouldn't we? (...) I think that's a great idea :) (...) I'm sorry, I can't understand why it's "too difficult" to enter {} by hand. It's on the standard keyboard. The (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kevin Clague

(...) As A C programmer, I'm quite adept at { and even } :) A a developer of L-CAD software, I'd rather see the syntax for current meta-commands unchanged. If we were to formalize meta-commands with a syntax change, we'd have to support both old and (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Yep. (...) Exactly. I'll make a side note on the { } issue. One of my goals (as Kevin knows) is to see this software more useable and accessible to general computer users and even kids in the intermediate level on up. I'd like people to have (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger

(...) Making LDraw accessible to the average computer user is a great thing! But, as you mentioned yourself - these users won't be editing the files by hand, they'll be using "good, free CAD software". So whatever meta commands they need to add, the (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) That's the ideal, but we don't have that right now at this moment :-) A good goal to aspire to, and one I'll certainly be promoting among those who are interested in hearing what I have to say. (...) Sure, understood. I still like the idea of (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger

(...) sure, that works almost as well as {}. It's the _lack_ of any punctuation that bothered me there. :) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Cool. Although I don't have that much (if any) of a say in punctuation/no punctuation, I could go either way. I still prefer no punctuation, to keep it consistent with the way it's been done before. BUT - can't always get hung up on the past (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kevin Clague

(...) I think we cannot ignore the backwards compatibility issue though. What we want is an explicit way to differentiate comments from meta-commands. I think defining an explicit mechanism for comments is completely backward compatible, because if (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger

(...) right. (...) but you just said you're doing that anyway - "if you do not recognize the first token in a line type 0 record, it is a comment". Is adding '{META}' to the list of recognizable tokens an issue? Also, you don't have to add it - if (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kevin Clague

(...) The exact same argment can be used in favor of dillineated comments. ;-) (...) Nope. Any program that does not recognize // (picking one as an example) simply ignores it. Just like (META). (...) I don't want to get sidetracked here, but (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Travis Cobbs

(...) As I tried to indicate in one of my posts much earlier in this thread, I realized after my original post that the presense of the {} would negate the need for a {META} tag. It would probably work just as well with (). The whole reason I (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kevin Clague

(...) Ah, I see the confusion. In saying //, what I really meant was "0 //", where // is the meta-command that means comment. Rather than place all new meta-commands in <>, or (), or {}, I'd rather have a token that means "the rest of this line is a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) If tags were the way to go, I agree. BUT, ultimately I side with Kevin, just add comment marks, not meta-command ones. I think that option makes the most sense. But as Dan also said, I'm not a programmer who will be implementing this, so I (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Travis Cobbs

(...) We already have a standard comment prefix: 0. For better or for worse, meta-commands are just comments that get interpreted to have meaning. I think it's unrealistic to expect users to remember to add a second comment prefix in addition to the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tore Eriksson

(...) True. That's why I suggested a strong recommendation of using whatever comment prefix we will agree on. Then let's say the future L3P -check will raise a warning for omitting that prefix. /Tore (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Anders Isaksson

"Travis Cobbs" <tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com> skrev i meddelandet news:HBvHFv.1x9E@lugnet.com... (...) This is not at all uncommon in programming languages, take Pascal for example (UCSD-Pascal, Delphi): A comment can be (* any characters except the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss

(...) Dan, You program in *Perl*. Of course you think it's good to always have punctuation. You probably think more punctuation == better. ;) Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger

(...) you mean $puctuation++ > ! $puctuation ? $goodness++ : $goodness-- ; ? (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss

(...) ROFL. I'm sorry, I can't reply in kind. My brain is too fogged. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss

(...) True, but that's no reason to have (unnecessary) complications. The computer will understand whatever we set it up to understand. LIGHTVALS, {LIGHTVALS}, 32.6, it's all the same to the silicon. Syntax is for users, beginning or advanced. If we (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Yup, LEdit chokes on it, just tried it out using unused line type 9 with text after it. D'oh. (...) I know how to use a keyboard. I'm talking convenience on the part of someone editing by hand. {} isn't necessary, so why add it to the mix? (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Dan Boger

(...) Exactly because it's not likely to be used, ever, by mistake. Anyone can put whatever comments they like in a dat, right? So if I write a dat, and want to enter 0 METAL RAIL STARTS HERE and typo it into 0 META LRAIL STARTS HERE (which is a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) Points taken :-) And ultimately, I'm not going to be involved in making the decision, since I won't be volunteering for the standards body [1]. Just getting in my .02 here while I can ;-) -Tim [1] I don't have the knowledge to discuss some (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tore Eriksson

(...) I don't know about American keyboards, but at my Swedish kb, '{' and '}' are at AltGr+7 and AltGr+0, and it collides with Swedish special characters in the ASCII table; it has to be set on codepage 850 or whatever it was. I find them somewhat (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tore Eriksson

(...) What I mean is: (URL) for example. Quite corrupted and hard to read - even for us who understand Swedish. ;-) I don't know whether brackets will be cause the same kind of problems, but there is a risk. Then a line from a posted part or model (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) This problem is not due to the Swedish character set, but rather a problem with the Lugnet web interface. The Lugnet web interface does not support RFC2047 encoded header fields, that explains the problems with the subject line. I have (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Kyle McDonald

(...) This is all the main idea behind my suggestion for a branch of the namespace to be considered 'open to all' without discussion. I originally suggested 0 APP appname COMMAND but now I wonder if 0 UNOFFICIAL appname COMMAND, or something (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Lars C. Hassing

(...) I like that. I think a clear indication that a comment is in fact a meta statement is needed. And I find "0 {META} " more distinct than (META), <META>, {BFC}, <BFC>, MODULENAME and whatever else has been suggested. But we're still stuck with (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Wayne Gramlich

(...) All: There are gazillions of file formats out there and most of them have had to undergo some amount format evolution. Format evolution is a healthy and common situation. A common first step towards evolving a file format is to introduce a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Tim Courtney

(...) Excellent suggestion, Wayne. (...) I like this - with one reservation. We should only focus on documenting 1.0.0 right now. Additions, which would go in a future version (1.1.0) are being openly discussed. Actual decisions on that version (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Tim Courtney

Ok...replying to myself here... (...) Also, Wayne, since we're on the topic of standards bodies, would you mind sharing with the community some of your thoughts about this, based on your past term(s) as Sun's representative to the W3C? Guys - (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Wayne Gramlich

[snip] (...) Tim: For those who do not know, W3C stands for World Wide Web Consortium and it is the organization that is responsible for web standards such as HTTP, URL, HTML, XML, etc. Before I get into the details of how W3C operates, let me start (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Larry Pieniazek

GREAT input Wayne. (now, can we twist Wayne's arm to be on the SC?) Yes, we should learn from orgs but not adopt everything. The proper balance is key. What follows is some ILTCO organizing committee experience. On the topic of conference calls, (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Orion Pobursky

(...) I'm not so keen on actual phone use (all I have is a cell phone), but using AIM, MSN, ICQ etc... is propbably the best way. (...) Due to my work, it's would be easier for me if we did this during or after a lego event. It's easier for me to (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I hear you. We may find that we need to move to phone to get more done faster but can start that way (...) Yep, me too. (...) If putting the function into ldraw.org itself isn't fast/easy, yes. Yahoo Groups, although disliked by some, are (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Dan Boger

(...) I don't have time to comment on all the rest yet, but ldraw is already set up for this - has been for a year, since we set it up for members@ldraw.org. Dan (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Tim Courtney

(...) There's a (mailman, I think) mailing list set up on LDraw.org which no one uses. We set it up to be used, but never made an effort to move discussion about organizaiton there, so we never used it. The intent was to allow anyone to join and (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Dan Boger

(...) very very easy to set up. A list where membership is moderated (not anyone can sign up), only members can post, and has public html archives is very easy to do. (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Tim Courtney

(...) Cool. :-) -Tim (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Wayne Gramlich

(...) I wasn't too enthusiastic about conference calls when I first heard W3C talk about them. They kind of grew on me as I saw how effective they were. We could resolve in 5 minutes an issue that would otherwise take days of elapsed time and hours (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Tim Courtney

(...) Definitely. I think it's important to draw from ILTCO's experience forming as well as Wayne's experience on the W3C. (...) Good idea. While I'm not going for a position on the SB myself, I can attest for the value of voice conversations over (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

SC Membership (was Re: LDraw Versioning) —Wayne Gramlich

(...) [snip] (...) All: I'm open to the concept of being on the SC. My concern is that is that I am not either a heavy LDraw user or LDraw tool person. This is primarily because most of the LDraw tools only run on Windows and I only run Linux these (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Larry Pieniazek

This thread has grown so much since Friday it's hard to know exactly where to interject.... so I just picked a spot. I'll have more to say later after reading the thread again but wanted to throw a few comments out. (...) YES! Exactly. And one could (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Tim Courtney

(...) I think you picked a great spot to come in at. (...) Yep: format evolution = good. (...) Good idea. I'd also like to add that such a standards body should be relatively few in number. Not to be exclusionary, but to maintain focus. The number 7 (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Tim Courtney

Ok, picking up where I left off with the previous post. (...) The group charged with working on this was Steve Bliss, Jacob Sparre Andersen, Terry Keller, Larry Pieniazek, and myself. There hasn't been much activity among the four of us as of late, (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Charter Org for LDraw.org (was: Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)) —Steve Bliss

In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote: [snippity-do-dah] (...) Whoa there! There is a *huge* difference between a 'formal organization' and a 'formal nonprofit organization'. If you were using 'nonprofit' informally, please *don't*. 'nonprofit' (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Charter Org for LDraw.org (was: Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)) —Tim Courtney

(...) Cool. I put 'nonprofit' in to emphasize the nature of the organization. While I've taken a cursory look at information on "nonprofit corporations," I'm not totally aware of alternatives. Obviously, we want to travel down the route that creates (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Ryan Farrington

Orion Pobursky wrote: What are we going to do when DOS support in PC OS's goes away completely? I have run into this problem with Windows XP, not so much with LEdit and LDraw--I use L3P more often. Thankfully, there is still a Win98 SE computer in (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Tim Courtney

(...) As Steve would say - LDraw and LEdit exist as a benchmark. I would add - for the _original_ LDraw spec - that is, everything LDraw/LEdit can do. 1.0.0 spec, which is essentially what Kevin is working on - documenting all meta-commands up to (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Lars C. Hassing

(...) In Windows XP you can open a command prompt by selecting All Programs/Accessories/Command Prompt, or by typing "cmd" in the Run... dialog. /Lars (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands) —Steve Bliss

(...) Right. But newer OS's and video cards are becoming less compatible with DOS programs, especially DOS programs that do graphics. I used to be able to run LDraw with Super-VGA resolutions (with Win95, I think). I haven't been able to that in (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

The DOS apps (was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Ryan Farrington

Lars Hassing wrote: > Ryan Farrington wrote: >>I have run into this problem with Windows XP, not so much with LEdit and >>LDraw--I use L3P more often. Thankfully, there is still a Win98 SE computer >>in the house! > > In Windows XP you can open a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: The DOS apps (was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Steve Bliss

(...) Make sure you've installed LDRAW027.EXE -- that should resolve the runtime 200 problem. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: The DOS apps (was Re: Backwards Compatibility) —Ryan Farrington

Steve Bliss wrote: > Make sure you've installed LDRAW027.EXE -- that should resolve the runtime > 200 problem. > > Steve Ah, now it works! Thanks, Steve! Cheers, --Ryan ryanjf@ifriendly.com (URL) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: Calling all Meta-commands —Steve Bliss

(...) ... and no. IMO, if the meta statement isn't listed in the current file format document, it's open to change. The meta-commands on that document (pulling from memory): STEP, PRINT, WRITE, SAVE (?!), (I gave up, dug out the code) PAUSE, CLEAR, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)