 | | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) I never imagined those numbers would be a permanent part of the document. I thought they'd go away once we accepted the BFC standard. But that never actually happened, so the document was never finalized, so the numbers never went away. When (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Hmm, the sequel to a hyphen... I like hyphen or double hyphen because they contrast more with the surrounding text. I agree with Kevin, anything's better than nothing. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Travis, By definition, all the programs have to be able to handle the original unadorned comments of type 0 records. This is a requirement for all 0.27 compliant programs. This means that anything we don't recognize as a meta-command is a (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) Steve, *anything* is better than nothing. Trying to read a DAT/LDR program that has *lots* of comments with interspersed meta-commands is really hard. I've programmed for 30 years, and I've never seen hyphen used as a start of comment. I guess (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) LDraw compatible, or LDraw.org compatible? ;-) You made a distinction before -- are you using the same metric now as well? Just curious. -Tim (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Calling all Meta-commands
|
|
(...) I've been avoiding weighing in on this issue but.. How about a double hyphen, '--' -Orion (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) The point of setting an 'LDraw.org Compatible' format would be to set the framework of LDraw files, not to restrict what can be in LDraw files. If a programmer wants to implement thier (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
|
(...) Do we really need to put the revision number next to every line? I find that astheically annoying. The way we do it in Nuke land is put a heavy black line in the margin next to all the lines that changed from the last revision. -Orion (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) I was trying to refrain from posting too many messages on issues that had already been cleared up. Besides, I'm trying to collect my thoughts on the SB for a single post. Steve (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Backwards Compatibility (Was Calling all Meta-commands)
|
|
(...) Not really. The important thing with the parts library is that files are accepted and added the distribution file. We don't even have a '0 Official' any more - now it's '0 LDRAW_ORG'. I was envisioning the 'LDraw.org Compatible' program to be (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
