Subject:
|
Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:26:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
634 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> > > The ~ tells mklist to ignore this part.
> >
> > Yes, that's one of the uses for the "~Moved to..." statement.
> >
> > > Just ignore the line, the following line type 1 will automatically redirect you to the new part.
> >
> > Ignoring is not an option. There just has to be a way automatically replace
> > references to renamed files, especially considered the enormous rate of
> > renaming/renumbering official part. My method worked until this problem popped
> > up.
>
> There is: use the file referenced by the type 1 line in the MovedTo file.
Sorry, I'm a little bit slow. Exactly how am I supposed to do that with
973p11.dat? And then make this a generic routine for a utility to handle
automatically?
>
> > Btw, doesn't MLCad also have a feature to replace references to moved files? I
> > don't use MLCad, but doesn't multiple movedto argument mess things up for MLCad,
> > too?
>
> Yes, MLCad messes this up as well. The problem is that you're using the 0
> ~MovedTo comment as a reference instead of the type 1 line in the file. 0
> ~MovedTo is a comment and not a META command and shouldn't be treated as such.
>
> -Orion
My opinion is that neither MLCad nor MovedTo.exe messes anything up. I think
it's the multiple MovedTo arguments that messes everything up, and the change of
its usage, be it just a comment or not. And not to mention to have rendering
code in a MovedTo file! It should be illegal. :)
/Tore
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
| (...) I had a look at 973p11.dat and I see what you mean. I'm not sure. (...) The rendering code is very neccessary. Not all LDraw programs automatically detect the fact the a file ahas been moved. If there were no rending code the the model could (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
| | | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
| "Tore Eriksson" <tore.eriksson@mbox3...wipnet.se> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:Hu4JnF.15r3@lugnet.com... <SNIP> (...) 0 (...) 0 (...) such. (...) think (...) change of (...) rendering (...) MLCad does not mess it up, but doesn't detect more levels (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Multiple MovedTo Arguments Really Legal?
|
| (...) There is: use the file referenced by the type 1 line in the MovedTo file. (...) Yes, MLCad messes this up as well. The problem is that you're using the 0 ~MovedTo comment as a reference instead of the type 1 line in the file. 0 ~MovedTo is a (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
19 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
|
|
|
|
