 | | Re: Improving the PT —Franklin W. Cain
| | | | I thought of another one, something I *know* I've mentioned before (in various discussions w/ Steve, off-line as well as here on LUGNet)... If a primitive or subfile that has *already* been released (i.e., the file is an **OFFICIAL** file), you (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Improving the PT —Chris Dee
| | | | | | (...) I can see where you are coming from on this and do sympathise. If I were doing the coding, I'd have difficulty in justifying spending the time needed to add this extra level of complexity to the PT, when what we are seeing is a _relatively_ (...) (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Improving the PT —Orion Pobursky
| | | | | (...) I disagree with this idea. Fixed parts can have subtle changes to them that may affect the parent part. In other words, part fixes are essentially new parts meant to replace the old parts. -Orion (21 years ago, 21-Nov-03, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | | |
