 | | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) 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: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
|
This thread has grown so much since Friday it's hard to know exactly where to interject.... so I just picked a spot. I'll have more to say later after reading the thread again but wanted to throw a few comments out. (...) YES! Exactly. And one could (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) As Steve would say - LDraw and LEdit exist as a benchmark. I would add - for the _original_ LDraw spec - that is, everything LDraw/LEdit can do. 1.0.0 spec, which is essentially what Kevin is working on - documenting all meta-commands up to (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
Orion Pobursky wrote: What are we going to do when DOS support in PC OS's goes away completely? I have run into this problem with Windows XP, not so much with LEdit and LDraw--I use L3P more often. Thankfully, there is still a Win98 SE computer in (...) (22 years ago, 15-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
|
(...) Excellent suggestion, Wayne. (...) I like this - with one reservation. We should only focus on documenting 1.0.0 right now. Additions, which would go in a future version (1.1.0) are being openly discussed. Actual decisions on that version (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I disagree. Let's stick with the current method of meta-commands until a standards body officially determines the syntax of future generation commands. No hold on anything, innovation can continue (just in the same disorganized fashion it (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) This is all the main idea behind my suggestion for a branch of the namespace to be considered 'open to all' without discussion. I originally suggested 0 APP appname COMMAND but now I wonder if 0 UNOFFICIAL appname COMMAND, or something (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Well this was one of the reasons behind my original suggestion. (This thread sure did take off while I was away skiing this weekend.) I suggested that a new meta command group be made today, albeit before the creation of a standards body, so (...) (22 years ago, 17-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
