Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:39:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1132 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, TWS Garrison wrote:
> It sounds like a good idea, although it fails the "is a" test. That is, if I
> look at a piece in my hand, I might think "It is a brick" "It is a slope" "It
> is a hinge" "It is a plate". I would not is "It is a round" I think the
> previous top-level descriptors have been nouns,[1] not adjectives. . .
Yes, but it passes the "Is it?" test. This is the test we'd have to use
to account for the Technic and Slope categories found in the LDraw parts
library. Technic and Slope are both adjectives, as used in part names.
We've got parts like "Technic Gear" and "Slope Brick", but no plain
"Technic" part. The Hinge category is another example of this. "Hinge
Plate", "Hinge Brick", etc.
And asking yourself "is it a round?" is as valid as "is it a slope?". ;)
> But what I'm really confused/frustrated/lost about is: why is this
> conversation in .cad.dev.org.ldraw?
Because we're talking about the LDraw.org Parts Library.
> And why (oh why?) does no one ever use .db.brictionary:
I don't use it because I never got involved in the Brictionary project,
and that group seems more tied to the Brictionary than plain parts
discussions. And nearly all of my parts discussions are tied to
LDraw.org business.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
56 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
