 | | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Well, I don't think that qualifies as an argument for its inclusion in the new !COLOUR statement, since those are already covered by the more precise pre-defined materials. --Travis Cobbs (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Developers! What softwares? ([LSC] Colour Def...)
|
|
(...) Why not just RGB instead of the not too intuitive VALUE? (I mean, it colud be any parameter value) Developers, what softwares will be updated to support this? L3P? ML-Cad? L3Lab? LDView? ...? /Tore (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) I don't want to specify that some parameters are order-specific, and others aren't. I'd rather they are all one way or the other. Goes back to easier 'correct' parsing. However, I'm sure the entries in ldconfig.ldr will always have their tags (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, the spec says just the opposite, that tags (keywords) are not case-sensitive: (...) That seems reasonable. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: [LSC] Colour Definition meta-statement
|
|
(...) Actually, I've most recently used dithering to simulate chrome/metal/metallic parts. Steve (21 years ago, 6-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
