 | | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) What's wrong with -? Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I think that's all right. (...) Hey, it looked like so much fun ... I don't think you were around for the old days. I might not have replied to every message in .cad, but it was close to that. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I think it could, in models and unofficial stuff. But I don't think it would be useful in the official parts library. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: The DOS apps (was Re: Backwards Compatibility)
|
|
(...) Make sure you've installed LDRAW027.EXE -- that should resolve the runtime 200 problem. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
But, isn't that more-or-less exactly what happens with the parts library? (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) So we (well, the SB eventually) decide on one way, stick to it, and implement it in programs. We can put a request in to Michael Lachmann to change the insertion of "WRITE" (which is an improper use of a meta-command) with "//" so future (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Good point. Thanks for nit-correcting, I think the intent is there on my part but semantics can play a role in whether or not people like/dislike an idea. (...) You're right on that part. That's why it would be a good thing to encourage (not (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) They might be comfortable with any number of conventions, but I guarantee they will forget sometimes if you try to require them to change the way they enter comments. --Travis Cobbs (tcobbs@REMOVE.halibut.com) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) OK, I'll start working on it. It might take a few days. Before I start, though I'd like to suggest resetting all line-version tags in the current version to 1, and then making my new changes as version 2. Given how long it's been since the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I hadn't thought about NOCLIP. (...) I think that FORCE would be more useful if it overrode NOCERTIFY, but not NOCLIP. When you say NOCERTIFY, you're saying you don't know how the file should be culled. When you say NOCLIP, you're saying you (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Has a hyphen been used anywhere for a similar purpose? I'm not aware of it. I'm one of the least-techy of the bunch, though I can hack some code, and I think it's better to stick to what most know, as long as it's not cumbersome like {}. I (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) you mean $puctuation++ > ! $puctuation ? $goodness++ : $goodness-- ; ? (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Right. Elsewhere in the thread you'll see I tested it in LEdit and it crashed -- that was soon ruled out of the discussion, at least for now :-) (...) Nit: That's a bit too much for my tastes. What's wrong with //? -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Very good point. In my conversations with a few semi-outsiders to the LDraw community, they believed systems could (or should, I see your [1] and rase you that) be established to encourage participation and compliance, but could not/should not (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) ROFL!!! :-) -Tim PS - Steve, while you posted quite a bit all at once, this isn't quite the "shock and awe" I was expecting. ;-) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I believe Lar mad the case that the SB can/should include people from all camps. I for the most part agree, because we need perspectives from the various types of people who create [elements of] and use this system. -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Charter Org for LDraw.org (was: Re: LDraw Versioning (Was Re: Backwards Compatibility))
|
|
(...) Cool. I put 'nonprofit' in to emphasize the nature of the organization. While I've taken a cursory look at information on "nonprofit corporations," I'm not totally aware of alternatives. Obviously, we want to travel down the route that creates (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) ... and no. IMO, if the meta statement isn't listed in the current file format document, it's open to change. The meta-commands on that document (pulling from memory): STEP, PRINT, WRITE, SAVE (?!), (I gave up, dug out the code) PAUSE, CLEAR, (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) can snag a copy of that. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Right. But newer OS's and video cards are becoming less compatible with DOS programs, especially DOS programs that do graphics. I used to be able to run LDraw with Super-VGA resolutions (with Win95, I think). I haven't been able to that in (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
