 | | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) Nit: we've already *got* an LDraw file format spec. Next item! (...) 'Control' is heavy-handed for my tastes. 'Support', 'endorse', 'coordinate' are all better. All a standards body could do is manage the documentation, and (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Dan, You program in *Perl*. Of course you think it's good to always have punctuation. You probably think more punctuation == better. ;) Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) True, but that's no reason to have (unnecessary) complications. The computer will understand whatever we set it up to understand. LIGHTVALS, {LIGHTVALS}, 32.6, it's all the same to the silicon. Syntax is for users, beginning or advanced. If we (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Depends on how open or closed the SB is. I think there's a place for part authors and users as well as developers. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Tim, I've been reading this thread, and you keep mentioning this 'Steve' person. 'Steve this' and 'Steve that'. I must have gone through 100 messages by now, and no 'Steve' has shown up. I'm beginning to suspect you are imagining this 'Steve' (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I really agree with Dan on this point. As I mentioned in another message, a standards body could certainly come up with suggestions for standard commands, but they wouldn't have any power of enforcement. About the only thing ldraw.org could[1] (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Because it wouldn't be supported by LDraw and LEdit. Part files frequently include comments, so any standard option for commenting should be allowable in the parts library. (...) Some people already use COMMENT. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Rosco, Unfortunately, MLCAD's use of WRITE is a really bad example, because MLCAD is mis-using an already standard meta-command. Plus, 0 WRITE statements are not allowed in official parts, so any part authors who create their files in MLCAD (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I support that (general) guideline. The only real difficulty is if the meta-command becomes generally accepted, and is 'promoted' to being an accepted standard. We'd either want a different prefix for org standards, or no prefix. Either way (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I agree with Larry -- support it publically. Recognize '0 LTrax xxxx' as the primary syntax for the command. Especially, let the author of the original command know that you are implement their command. Hopefully, that will give them cause to (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Did you flag your changes? Basically, you should have changed the rev to 11 (and updated the modification date). And put an 11 on the left side of any lines you changed. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | The DOS apps (was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
|
Lars Hassing wrote: > Ryan Farrington wrote: >>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 the house! > > In Windows XP you can open a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Standards Body Thoughts
|
|
Hi Chris - (...) I agree that one of you should be involved on this committee/board. (...) I'm a fan of real-time chat or phone, and while I won't be participating as a member of the board, encourage the members to use such methods. (...) Ok. Steve (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
Thanks Dan, I created page (URL) that has my current list of known meta-commands for LDraw 0.27 as well as those that have been invented since. Kevin (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) In Windows XP you can open a command prompt by selecting All Programs/Accessories/Command Prompt, or by typing "cmd" in the Run... dialog. /Lars (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) There are currently a number of flags that indicate that a file is a part. The official one is only present in files that have been updated since it was made official. However, this isn't a problem, since any BFC-certified part is guaranteed (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
I saved this thread for later reading, and I've got a few questions now. Sorry if I'm resurrecting something everyone thought was dead :D (...) Once the parts library is fully BFC certified, will there ever be a need to use CLIP or NOCLIP? I'm not (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I like that. I think a clear indication that a comment is in fact a meta statement is needed. And I find "0 {META} " more distinct than (META), <META>, {BFC}, <BFC>, MODULENAME and whatever else has been suggested. But we're still stuck with (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Dan (& Todd?) - I wonder if it would be possible to add an option (similar to skip filter settings) which would allow the web interface user the choice of displaying dots on the message page for threads over 100 or not. The default could be (...) (22 years ago, 19-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
