 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Are we REALLY stuck with current meta-commands? Sure if we change them all (the META Statements) after setting up a "body of standards" our old files may not work but somewhere down the future is it NOT better to NOT worry about backward (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes: [...] (...) I agree with the route of a standards body to control (officially adopted) meta-commands. The second option is just a fix, and the third option is unacceptable, especially if we want to see more (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Your fresh eyes are very welcome. We had long discussions where sections of the spec were changed/moved/rewritten over and over, and I think there are some unnecessary repetions and redundacies, so a new full rewrite would be quite beneficial. (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) Huh? Isn't NOCLIP/CLIP exactly for "un-commenting" a section (including subfile references) that hasn't been BFC checked? /Lars (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Are Meta-commands case-sensitive?
|
|
(...) L3P and L3Lab treat the FILE case-sensitive. (...) I think the "file type" meta-commands are the only ones that have been defined to NOT be case-sensitive. And yes, the "syntax" is a mess :-) (...) I agree. (...) L3P and L3Lab: MPD - (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Are Meta-commands case-sensitive?
|
|
I have a question about Meta-commands. Are meta-commands all supposed to be case-sensitive? As an example, is the 0 FILE MPD meta-command case-sensitive? I'm asking this because I have an MPD file that contains sub-files that themselves obviously (...) (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) This is really no different from the fact that the incoming certify state has to also be on. So a subfile won't be BFC'd unless all its parents are certified and it is certified as well. Also, presumably if you refer to a subfile in a section (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) The spec should probably be updated to reflect this, I suppose. Please note that this comment and everything below is meant as constructive criticism. It's not meant as a complaint or a slight. I'd just like to see the spec improved. I'll even (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I'm currently doing this. Give me a couple of days. -Orion (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) What if file has NOCLIP, and subfile has CLIP (with or without accompanying NOCLIP)? Couldn't that become confusing? Should it automagically revert back to NOCLIP when the subfile is finished? ROSCO (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec? [DAT]
|
|
(...) Sorry this wasn't clear. It does mean 'current file and all subfiles'. More accurately, it means 'turn off clipping until/unless it gets turned back on in this file, overriding any possibility of clipping in a subfile, until the end of this (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Please go ahead and do it. Make it so. Steve (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Steve - Do you want to stick this on the site, or do you want me to? Either way is fine with me. -Tim (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
Thanks to everyone for the info. Now that I'm reading the spec, I have a question (and may have more later). In one part, it lists three conditions that must be met in order for BFC clipping to occur. The last condition is the following: 4 - No (...) (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Yes, that's the latest document that can claim to be a spec. I checked the Parts Tracker FAQ, but it just pointed me to (URL) just has links, primarily to the document Lars found. If anyone wants to rewrite the proposal document to something (...) (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) The wonderful Google came up with this link on a search for "BFC CERTIFY NOCERTIFY CLIP NOCLIP CW CCW INVERTNEXT" (URL) to me looks like the latest revision, but I guess Steve Bliss is the right person to ask. /Lars (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I agree. If someone provides me the spec, I'll add it to the site. -Tim (22 years ago, 11-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
