 | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) Points taken :-) And ultimately, I'm not going to be involved in making the decision, since I won't be volunteering for the standards body [1]. Just getting in my .02 here while I can ;-) -Tim [1] I don't have the knowledge to discuss some (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) Exactly because it's not likely to be used, ever, by mistake. Anyone can put whatever comments they like in a dat, right? So if I write a dat, and want to enter 0 METAL RAIL STARTS HERE and typo it into 0 META LRAIL STARTS HERE (which is a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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? (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) besides, if we add a new linetype, we're breaking LDRAW.EXE and LEDIT.EXE, wouldn't we? (...) I think that's a great idea :) (...) I'm sorry, I can't understand why it's "too difficult" to enter {} by hand. It's on the standard keyboard. The (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Remember that it is in the current specification that all META-commands be uppercase. I don't know many people that write with caps-lock on but I'm sure it won't happen enough to be a problem. -Orion (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I understand the point, but yep - my line of thinking was what you just said, META isn't that common. (...) Ok. (...) Yeah. Well, the suggestion is something new - which ultimately should be considered by a standards body, and not decided upon (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Right. While a lock would be well meant, it just isn't the right approach. (...) Yep. (...) Not selfish in the least, I don't think. If you're doing this for your own enjoyment, why should you be expected to get a group opinion before adding (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) No, I think the intention is to create an official set of meta-commands, which official software should recognise and/or implement. The important point being that any file containing non-ratified commands will not make it into the official (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Travis Cobbs writes: <snip> (...) I like this suggestion a lot. It solves most of the problems we've been discussing about namespace pollution. -Orion (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Having read the other replies to this post, I feel that--no matter how well-intentioned--putting a lock on new meta-commands is both wrong and impractical. The simple fact is that all LDraw-based development is done voluntarily. As such, it's (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I agree that the discussion should take place - I'm just worried about the "regulation" part. Dan (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) See this web page: (URL) this one: (URL) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Point taken, but I still think developers should discuss what they want to add with LDraw.org and Lugnet.cad.dev so that they don't add something that's already been added or being developed. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I agree 100%. -Tim (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Yes, of course the spec document would govern it. What I was more referring to was bodies of people and processes. -Tim (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) hmmm... how is file naming part of the spec? the spec says it's 8.3, but what else would it say? (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) the more I think about it, the less sense it makes to me. The community (or the "board") could suggest names, and keep track of what's out there - but a "yea or nay" power seems excessive. How, exactly, do you propose you enforce this "nay"? I (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) To some extent the parts library will have to be goverened by the file spec. The most glaring issues for this seem to be Part File naming and BFC complience. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) No, I'm saying that if anyone is thinking about adding a meta-command they need to, at the very least, post what they plan to add so that the community can comment and ultimatly say yea or nay. Once the committee us up a running thay will take (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
Quoting Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com>: (...) I disagree. How can you prevent the various programmers from adding new functionality to their software? Why should development on all these tools halt until the non-existent committee figure out what's (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes: <snip> (...) 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. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Don't forget about LDLite: (URL) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin Clague writes: Mucho Snippo. (...) Excellent points, Kevin! All - I can second everything Kevin is saying here. Through many private exchanges, and by meeting Kevin at BricksWest, I've come to understand his position on this (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
Hi All, Wow! This thread has created more postings that I thought it would. So far I've gathered meta-commands from (URL) Eriksson LTrax, Parent: Kevin Clague - LPub and LSynth There must be more. If you know of programs that define their own (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Hi Orion, Here is my take on the current state of LDraw related tools and parts library. There are a few documents that sketch out the basic mechanics of what we use today, but the real standards are the programs that we have that use them. We (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Cool. Kevin started the call for meta-commands, and I believe he plans to assemble them into a list/document. If you want to help with that, I suggest you email him. -Tim (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Consider this my volunteer for this standards body. I can also work on an informal list of META commands. -Orion (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) While a noble proposal in spirit, I strongly feel we need to organize what we have before taking that radical of a step forward. Once we've defined the current LDraw format spec and all meta-commands, a standards body can work at defining a (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I agree the backward compatibility is good, to a point. This is especially true for the parts library. Too many times we refuse to fix something or extend the file spec (e.g. new colors not able to be represented by existing color numbers) (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Why not keep previous meta-commands where they're at, but also introduce a new line-type exclusively for meta-commands? I'm not too keen on MLCad's WRITE, to me it makes little to no sense. Maybe if it was COMMENT or even ! (like an HTML (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
