Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:02:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1362 times
|
| |
|
|
> > > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss writes:
> > I was using this part: <http://guide.lugnet.com/parts/search.cgi?q=2880>
Wrong number, BTW.
> > for the example. This part gets used in a wide variety of contexts, in
> > Train, Town, and Space. Hence my comment about "robot claws" (see
> > <http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6889>).
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Urp. um yes... but then the proper name of this part is "Pantograph Shoe
> Holder" if one uses a trainish naming... as what it holds is pantograph shoes
>
> > From your description, you were talking about
> > <http://guide.lugnet.com/parts/search.cgi?q=2881>. Which suffers from
> > similiar name-challenges, but is a much less common part.
>
> and this part would be "Pantograph Shoe"
>
> But of course a much better name for this is something more like "rod double
> with bent ends and 2 finger clip" or something.
"Double Curved Handle, Bottom Hinge, 3M", FWIW
> > > 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.
> >
> > I will generally go for attribute/geometric names, except when that
> > approach gives much worse results than usage/theme/intuitive names.
>
> We're in agreement. My bone is with Joshua, an extremely clever fellow in
> most every respect, except when he's wrong. :-)
ad hominem, Lar. Tsk, tsk.
It's a subtle version, though. Props for that.
> > And parts authors are encouraged to make extensive use of KEYWORDS
> > entries, to help people when they are searching for parts.
>
> Yes please.
Doesn't work in every package.
Of course, it doesn't concern me QUITE as much, since any decent package
will allow user notes or even full renaming anyway. And then each user can
have everything to his own specifications.
> See also the brickbay discussion groups where we are wrangling over
> nomenclature as well. There is a significant faction that does not want to
> use LDraw names because they are too confusing and too slow to get
> corrected. I would use them even if they are confusing because consistency
> is good. If Brickbay ends up with a different nomenclature (even if it's
> better) that's bad.
There already are competing nomenclatures. Heck, several names that I got
used to (standardized on) from James' work have now faded away, so I can't
find things I already knew...
I happen to like Mr. Hughes names a lot too (he tends to tread close to
"official" TLG usage when he can, of course.
-- joshua
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
