|
|
 | | Re: Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
| (...) I'd prefer we say that local/absolute references are allowed, but provide guidelines to show that relative paths are usually better - easier to manage, easier to share, etc. (...) Yes, yes, and I'm guessing yes. (...) I think you are correct - (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Good question. Different programs have more (or less) success at handling this. L3Lab seems to have no trouble with it. LDLite usually does ok, but not always (unfortunately, I don't have an example). (...) There's no special syntax, the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Auggh! Hey, it's not too late -- there is no official BFC spec. Yet. :> Steve (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Right. Any "MPD splitter" program should include code to check that filenames and paths are valid, and either report missing paths, or create them, or ask the user before creating them, or provide options (ie, command line parameters) to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) MPD files should not be named ".ldr" (or ".dat")! Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Done. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Paths, explicit drive references, and the case of file names (Was: MPD spec)
|
| (...) I am not sure about explicit drive references. Actually, I think we should limit it to _relative_ paths. We should also decide on a preferred - or maybe even fixed - directory name delimiter. I suppose that it should be "\", even though Unix (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) I would even call it a bad thing to do. But then I have a habit of putting "FILE" meta-command in all my files, so maybe I should stop criticising and try to fix my own bad habits first. > It's very easy to overwrite the main file with if the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) I have ldr files with up to 4 levels of nested sub files, and LDview, L3Lab, and MLCad all appear to render them fine. ROSCO (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) I don't know about the other parsers, but as far as LDView is concerned an LDraw file is an LDraw file is an LDraw file. It makes no distinctions between ldr files, dat files, and mpd files. If it sees a 0 FILE command, it starts its MPD (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) I don't know how ldglite and other parsers work, but I guess they don't create files with paths and all, but rather objects somewhere in RAM, with 'filenames' just as a property. But if you call the procedure SaveToFile(Path+FileName) to save (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) This is a very good question, and is even more important with the migration to a single filename suffix (.LDR). What happens when your type-1 line refers to a LDR that happens to be a multi-part dat? Cheers, - jsproat (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Another thing I realised the other day is that in Australia, the opposite of clockwise is generally anti-clockwise rather than counter-clockwise, so the BFC CERTIFY should really be CW or ACW, but it's a bit late to worry about it now! ROSCO (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) FWIW both the ldlite and l3 parsers in ldglite are OK with paths in an MPD file. Just make sure the path in the 0 FILE line matches the path on the type 1 line that pulls in the subfile. If they don't match it reports that it can't find the (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| I was wondering, didn't see it discussed in the text, is it permitted / custom to have ldraw files in a mpd file reference other mpd files? If so is the first part in the file used or is there some naming convention pointing to the correctsubpart (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Hmm. I don't remember if there was a lot of discussion about putting paths on the 0 FILE line. So I won't say for absolute sure that the program should allow them. I'd say any software that *thinks* it needs a directory, and crashes when it's (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Err, the entry for MPD in the glossary: (URL) here: (URL) is a bad link. Could you update the glossary to point to the new spec? Don (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) MPD Workshop cannot handle a reference to a non-existing directory, or rather, it does not create a folder if necessary. For example: (URL) line: 0 FILE s\41342s01.dat assumes that there already exists the folder 's\' in the target directory, (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Good point. Should probably also add the following... - There shouldn't be multiple files with the same name. - paths are allowed, so are explicit drive references. But the capability should be use with restraint, since it can easily make it (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) One addition that might be useful for people using the spec is to explicitly state that other than the first file being the main one, there is no implicit order to the remaining files. This is implied by the existing spec, but not actually (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
|
