Subject:
|
Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:53:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1823 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > I sort of don't follow the subtlety of the issue with lookup (GNU
> > gettext?), but it seems to me from the outside that the part number
> > ought to be the lookup key rather than one version of the part name.
>
> But the existing part names are the unique identifier *we* have control
> over. Lego may well start calling a 'Brick 2x2' 'OleKirk347' in the next
> version of the moulds, but it's still a 'Brick 2x2', right?
And Lego may change the number of that 2x2 from 3003 to 53456343, but it'd still
be a 3003 to us, right?
> There's also the value of at least a default text when the translation file
> is older than the part library.
Yes, true.
> > part numbers are designed to be unambiguous,
>
> As unambigous as set numbers? Why do you trust Lego not to reuse the number
> of an old part that they will *never* produce again?
LDraw numbers are designed to be unambiguous. And that unambiguity is enforced
by the fact that we store our data in the file system -- so there's no way for
two different LDraw parts to have the same number (well, not at the same time).
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Internationalization of the part library?
|
| (...) But the existing part names are the unique identifier *we* have control over. Lego may well start calling a 'Brick 2x2' 'OleKirk347' in the next version of the moulds, but it's still a 'Brick 2x2', right? There's also the value of at least a (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
