Subject:
|
Re: I have read the article about LCD
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.lcd
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Feb 2002 00:29:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2567 times
|
| |
|
|
> Whe should not develop multiple syntax levels.
What are you meaning by multiple syntax levels, Damien?
> Then there will LMPL so we specify submodel movements.
Let me report that LMPL is almost ready. It is going to be published soon.
> Then, without doubts, there will be additionnal syntax for, say, minifig
> scripting, minifig dialog, model scripting, collision detection and user
> control by joystick and mouse.
LMPL contains these in theory.
> You should have only one specification language that encompasses all
> present and future needs.
Of course we should.
> Here is a simple Prolog-style function that tests the Stud-Inlet connectivity :
>
> Connect( Stud(x1,x2,y1,y2,z1), Inlet(x3,x4,y3,y4,z3) ) :=
> if z1 # z3 then False
> else if x1 >= x4 then False
> else if x2 <= x3 then False
> else if y1 >= y4 then False
> else if y2 <= y3 then False
> else True
Well, this seems to be usable. In fact, I don't feel it an important
question that which syntax should developers develop, if once they do.
Actually, I've used a BASIC-like syntax for LMPL, being tired enough
with the multi-structurated, hierarchically hierarchical programming
languages of our days. LMPL contains as much of structurality as needed
to keep things working, and nothing more. (No GOTO inside. :)
> Actually, using such a structured language, we can formally specify LCD.
In fact, we didn't want to use a language to specify LCD. We simply planned
to collect data and put them in a database. Do you think we need a
programming language even to develop LCD itself, without LMPL? If yes, why?
> May be I will use it to develop a concurrent LCD proposal.
If so, I'll be curious for it, but the main question is that if they
(people around) going to collect data about connectors and connections
or not. When we published the LCD proposal, lugnet.cad.dev was happy
seeing it, what was very nice to see. But all wonders endure three days,
and enthusiasm in the group has been fallen down. I didn't hear about
a single person who would undertake the task to take LDraw or even Lego
parts one by one, measure distances and angles, and write results down.
Therefore, we may develop lots of concurrent proposals for our desk. :(
But on the other hand: if your proposal pushes the wheel and makes people
working on the idea, I will be the happiest. I absolutely don't mind
whose proposal will be realized, the ours or a different one, if the
result meets my dreams about playing with virtual Lego. I ain't from the
jealous kind. :)
LAD
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I have read the article about LCD
|
| Hello Láng Attila D. and Hello Kiss Attila Csongor, This thread is not very frequented now. May be because the debate has to become much more technical. (...) I mean if LMPL is not sufficient, we are in danger to either add more and more syntax (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.lcd)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | I have read the article about LCD
|
| I have read the article about LCD. The primary usage of an LCad library is to provide many quality virtual parts. So the future of LDraw library is more and better parts. The primary usage of an LCad tool is to select and position virtual parts. So (...) (23 years ago, 24-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.lcd)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
