Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:01:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1235 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
<mostly snipped>
I agree pretty much with everything Steve wrote here. As I said before, as a
USER I'd rather have a multiattribute shape/connectivity based system rather
than "pirate hull" and "destroyer droid" based names.
However I have to nitpick one thing:
> But here's an example of a usage-based name that's un-useful: "Train
> Catenary Holder". People have asked time and time again where to find
> this part, when they're modeling their space robots, or dragons, or Town
> creation.
Your example is wrong! If it were "Catenary" maybe I'd have a prayer of
finding it (because I know Trains better than some) but it isn't.
It's "CaNtenary" (which is spelled wrong), or at least it was, and that has
gotten propagated into many other places, so even if I *knew* the incorrect
association (this part is a PANTOGRAPH SHOE not a catenary holder... A
catenary holder would be a thing that bolts onto poles and holds the power
wire (that is, it holds catenary), not a thing mounted on trains that
contacts wires, for goodness sake!) I *still* might not find it.
This misnamed and misspelled part (bless the memory of James, he didn't know
better, it's not his fault for choosing the wrong name) is my favorite
example of the folly of theme or usage based part names.
So please don't go with theme based names or even worse set based names.
This CAD user implores those arguing against logical names to reconsider
their position. That way lies madness.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
56 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
|
|
|
|
