CAD Development : 8441


CAD / Development / 8441	8440 \| 8442

Subject:	Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.cad.dev
Date:	Sat, 15 Mar 2003 19:05:55 GMT
Viewed:	1887 times

In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: > In lugnet.cad.dev, Orion Pobursky writes: > > In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: > > <snip> > > > If we want to encourage other programmers to volunteer and write programs > > > for the LDraw system, what exists now needs to be clearly documented. > > > > 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. > > I agree. 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 collisions b) don't reinvent the wheel c) have examples of ways to create meta-commands d) gain some philosophies for knowing how to create new meta-commands in the future. e) motivate people to look to the list and the community for guidance when creating new meta-commands. I've been truding through the list of search matches in CAD for meta-command, and it has been very interesting reading. We've already had the creation of new meta-commands that are now depricated (e.g. BFC). We've also had at least one LDraw file format super-set created with ldlite. We've also had some proposals for the successors to the LDraw file format (they seem to have died though.) This "call for meta-commands" is also not the first attempt at a comprehensive list of meta-commands. <snip> Kevin

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
(...) 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)

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

Custom Search