 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
|
(...) All: There are gazillions of file formats out there and most of them have had to undergo some amount format evolution. Format evolution is a healthy and common situation. A common first step towards evolving a file format is to introduce a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) What I mean is: (URL) for example. Quite corrupted and hard to read - even for us who understand Swedish. ;-) I don't know whether brackets will be cause the same kind of problems, but there is a risk. Then a line from a posted part or model (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I don't know about American keyboards, but at my Swedish kb, '{' and '}' are at AltGr+7 and AltGr+0, and it collides with Swedish special characters in the ASCII table; it has to be set on codepage 850 or whatever it was. I find them somewhat (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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: LDraw file spec
|
|
Cool! More thoughts later, I'm off for the afternoon. -Tim (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDraw file spec
|
|
In light of recent discussion, I'm working on a consolidated file spec. Basically my aim is to combined the original spec with the 'Official' additions and mention the other additions and where to find definitions. The 'Official' group: The original (...) (22 years ago, 16-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
