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 / 8475
8474  |  8476
Subject: 
Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:36:46 GMT
Viewed: 
2431 times
  
In lugnet.cad.dev, Travis Cobbs writes:

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.

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 don't get that say.

Since Tim posted that ledit doesn't like new line types, it might be hard to
convince people to accept // for comments.

I don't. It's standard to have to prefix comments with something. Also,
POV-Ray uses //.

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.

Sure, in theory. I don't see that big of a deal with indtroducing // blah..
as an explicit comment, and leaving meta-commands alone. As Kevin said, it's
much better to have implicit and explicit comments than it is to have
implicit and explicit meta-commands.

--Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com)

p.s.  Has anyone taken a look at the Lugnet traffic statistics for this
week? :-)

Yeah, we're really up there!

-Tim



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
 
(...) 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)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
 
(...) 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)

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
    

Custom Search

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