Subject:
|
Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:53:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2063 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin Clague writes:
> 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 new style meta-commands
> anyway. Anything that is not detected as a meta-command is a comment.
Yep.
> Changing meta-command syntax would not be good for the parts database
> either. Just more work to do.
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
access to good quality free CAD software they can understand. Having watched
your average computer user try to familiarize themselves with this, I can
attest that even the concept of hand-editing a file makes them uneasy.
Requiring { } on meta-commands would just add another layer, albeit
perceived, on their part of this system's complexity. Allthough we see them
as characters, they see them as jibberish they don't understand.
So, I strongly favor the KISS method.
> It makes much more sense to me to have a COMMENT (or something less
> laborious like // which means comment for the rest of the line in C++).
>
> // This is a comment
>
> is nicer than
>
> // COMMENT this is a comment.
>
> The programs all have to ignore type 0 records that do not match the list of
> meta-comments the programs support and assume they are comments. The above
> formalizing of comments would be for the reader, not for the programmer (due
> to backward compatibility issues), but the technique would be compatible
> with all existing LDraw compatible programs.
Good points. It's better IMO to split off Comment and have special
characters denoting it, than it is for meta-commands.
But, you're right, since old comments won't follow // (or whatever is
decided upon), programs will still have to ignore everything in 0 that
doesn't match a list of recognized meta-commands.
> > 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 :)
>
> Nothing wrong with that in my book.
Nope -- this is a good discussion, and provides fodder for the
standards-body-to-be.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
