Subject:
|
Re: Complete list of metacommands?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Mar 1999 08:51:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
859 times
|
| |
|
|
-----Original message-----
From: Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net>
To: lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com <lugnet.cad.dev@lugnet.com>
Date: maandag 29 maart 1999 22:00
Subject: Re: Complete list of metacommands?
I wrote:
> > Steve, could you supply us with a list of valid categories, sub-categories
> > and sub-sub-categories ?
> > Or at least the ones that are allowed at this moment ?
Steve answered,
> Umm, *anything* is allowed at the moment, since these meta-statements
> aren't used anywhere. But I'd suggest new parts should use the first word
> of their descriptive name as the first entry for 0 CATEGORY. Or at least
> that the category entry should be an existant LDraw category. Which means
> that it appears as the first word in at least one part description.
Steve, Is it not a good idea to confine the category specification a little
bit more, After all, some parts have a first word in their name that are not
good examples for a category name. If we want to use these meta statements
in the future, now is the appropriate time to enforce some regulation on it.
I think it will get out of hands and result in a unusable mess if you don't.
Greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Complete list of metacommands?
|
| (...) Until now, no one has paid much attention to the idea of having these keywords around. I agree with you completely, but it's a chicken-and-egg problem. Until we've got software to support using the CATEGORY entries, we can't depend on them. (...) (26 years ago, 30-Mar-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
