| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Tore Eriksson wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> > >
> > > I think the MPD standard should include scoping/visibility rules, so
> > > FILEs in an mpd are only available from within that MPD, not from other
> > > DAT/LDR/MPD files.
>
> > I think so, too.
>
> Me too. And originally, you actually had to split a MPD file
> before you could view the contents. I would prefer that we
> stick to this way of treating MPD files as if they are
> splitted/unpacked before their content is processed.
I disagree with this. Or, if we keep this approach for MPD, I'll want
another standard language extension for embedding "macros" in LDraw files.
I tend to view (and use) FILEs in MPD files as "subroutines", and I'd prefer
they were designed to work that way.
Also, as Tore pointed out already, some programs support names on FILE lines
that are totally invalid as physical file names. Although I can see many
reasons *not* to use this capability, I can also see reasons *to* use it.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Have you considered that that means that MPD files will no longer be able to be rendered by LDraw? (or have I overlooked something?) (...) Yes, but it is a single-level subroutine system like in C. (I complain about it in C, but that is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: MPD spec
|
| (...) Me too. And originally, you actually had to split a MPD file before you could view the contents. I would prefer that we stick to this way of treating MPD files as if they are splitted/unpacked before their content is processed. (...) That is (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
65 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
|
|
|
|
