Subject:
|
Re: Parts Tracker - Using L3P-check to scan submitted files
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 12:24:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
418 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Steve: • [snip areas of agreement]
>
> > Errors, but should they cause rejection?:
> >
> > 2 Vertices not coplanar (%g) Only if -det/-dist option
> > 1 Identical to a previous line Line has been seen before (L3P16)
> > 1 Identical to line %u Line has been seen before (L3P32)
>
> I would say yes. The last two definitely should, since they
> indicate unneeded resource use.
Which is sloppy, but not a killer error.
> The first one should really
> be split in to two triangles, if it really is intended to be
> non-planar.
I didn't list the non-coplanar message with the "reject" group is because
the thresholds of coplanarity are variable, not fixed. So we need to agree
on what level of coplanarity we require.
> > Warnings (don't reject):
> >
> > 0 Color 24 illegal for this line type, using 16 Color 24 not valid for
> > linetype 1,3,4
> > 1 Lines should not use color 16 Color 16 not valid for linetype 2,5
> > 3 Comment lines should have space after 0 Ill-formatted comment like "01 ..."
>
> I would reject on all these three. - And I always thought
> that "01" was equivalent to "1" and not to "0".
Yes, "01" is a badly-formed "1". The verbiage on that error is odd. It
should just be a "bad linetype" error.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
7 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
|
|
|
|
