 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
