Subject:
|
Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:35:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2381 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Travis Cobbs writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Kevin Clague writes:
> > I'd personally prefer something like ! instead of (META) or {META}, but that
> > is because I'm used to the concept in unix.
>
> 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 suggested {META} in the first place was to prevent comments
> from being misinterpreted as meta-commands. The following examples should
> be almost as effective:
>
> 0 (BFC) CW
> 0 (FILE) myfile.dat
>
> Once again, I'm just using these as examples. I don't want to change the
> format of any the pre-existing meta-commands. Oh, and stealing an example
> from another post in this thread:
>
> 0 (VERSION) 1 0 0
>
> Note that I shortened from LDRAWVERSION to just (VERSION) because the ()
> delimiters should accomplish the task of making sure it's not already used.
> I think as long as we don't allow spaces between the parentheses, we'll be
> fine. I would expect single-word parenthetical phrases to be rare enough in
> comments to be confident of avoiding mis-interpretation.
>
> Another alternative that might be less frightening to users that {}, but
> also more rare than parentheses would be <>, i.e.:
>
> 0 <BFC> CW
> 0 <FILE> myfile.dat
> 0 <VERSION> 1 0 0
>
> In fact, I think I like the above more than any of the other suggestions
> I've seen, including my own earlier ones.
>
> Since Tim posted that ledit doesn't like new line types, it might be hard to
> convince people to accept // for comments. I also think it's taking the
> wrong approach. If we're going to force something to change, then the tools
> are probably a better target than all the users.
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 meta-command". Something
like META or !, or $ as was suggested. This serves the same purpose as
placing all new meta-commands in <>, but just feels better to me.
Kevin
>
> --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com)
>
> p.s. Has anyone taken a look at the Lugnet traffic statistics for this
> week? :-)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
