To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.devOpen lugnet.cad.dev in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / 8453
8452  |  8454
Subject: 
Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:48:57 GMT
Viewed: 
4456 times
  
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:22:40AM +0000, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> > Another suggestion Kevin kicked around with me (and I mentioned it to Steve,
> > I forget his rection though), was introducing a new line type specifically
> > for meta-commands. Thoughts on that?
> 
> Well, I don't know about other programs, but LDView will throw them in the
> error log, but otherwise ignore them.  It would be really easy for me to add
> support for the new type and not throw them in the error log, though.
> 
> One downside of a new line type is that I think we would need to wait for
> fairly wide-spread tool support of the new line type before we could
> reasonably make it "official".

besides, if we add a new linetype, we're breaking LDRAW.EXE and
LEDIT.EXE, wouldn't we?

> Come to think of it, the above {META} is somewhat unnecessary.  If we're
> going to use braces, then the mere presense of the braces could indicate a
> meta-statement.  i.e.:
> 
> 0 {MPD-FILE} <filename>
> 0 {NOFILE}
> 0 {FIELD} Author: Travis Cobbs

I think that's a great idea :)

> If non-programmers think the braces make it too difficult to enter by hand,
> I'm comfortable with not having them, and just using 0 META to specify
> meta-commands.

I'm sorry, I can't understand why it's "too difficult" to enter {} by
hand.  It's on the standard keyboard.  The people who actually edit
stuff by hand have the requirement of knowing how to use a keyboard :)
I mean, when SMTP format was design, you think they were worried that
people will have a hard time typing "@"? *grin*

> > Nevertheless - I do think RIGHT NOW the focus should be on documenting what
> > we have, per Kevin's goals, and LATER we should worry about the future of
> > meta-commands. One thing at a time.
> 
> This seems reasonable.  However, news threads (including this branch of this
> one) can't really easily be put on hold.

Also, most of us don't really have anything to contribute to the
documentation process - it's up to the program authors to supply the
data.  Meanwhile, the community as a whole can consider and design the
future of the format here :)

--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
 
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
  Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
 
(...) 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? (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
 
(...) 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. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 16-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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR