 | | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) True, but I feel this part might fall under Larry's "terribly unwieldy" escape clause. Even if he doesn't think so. (...) It's arguable at this point, but the long-term general idea is that you can do whatever you want with your original file, (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) I would argue that 2917 probably belongs in windscreen or window, I guess? In an ideal world there would be a way to associate a part with its "partner" as it were without using naming, there just would be a link between them somehow. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) It might. (...) I can see your point. And I must admit that the first category I would search for this part under would be "Train". - Which certainly implies that "train" at least should be a keyword for the part. (...) Sort of. In principle (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) Hmm. Interesting idea. So part 3937 (URL) might have an entry like: 0 ASSOCIATE 3938 6134 and part 3938 (URL) might have: 0 ASSOCIATE 3937 2440 (of course, these examples capture information that otherwise might be captured by a connectivity (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) Yes. Play well, Jacob (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: ASSOCIATE (was: Re: Renaming of 2916.dat)
|
|
(...) WAY better than using naming to overload. 2916 and 2917 get at best a very weak association if they have train in their name. With the ASSOCIATE keyword extension it becomes quite explicit what their connection is. (and parts can also have (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
