|
|
 | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) I'm not following. Are you agreeing with the idea of using embedded POV-Ray code, or having separate file libraries? I *think* you agree with the second, am I right? The one thing we gain by having embedded POV-Ray code is the ability to have (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| In a nutshell, 'namespaces'. Switching among parts libraries to get different versions (or different data) should be an application capability, not the individual part file. (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) Well, if thats how you really feel, then why even bother to "write up a spec/reference page on 0 IFDEF" at all. The instant you put the line: 0 IFDEF <code> in a part file you're blessing a non-ldraw extension. The <code> is by definition a (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev, Don Heyse writes: [snipped things down a bit] (...) Generally, yeah. But mostly to the extent that I haven't thought it through enough. (...) That could work, but IMO only pushes the issue to the side. To some extent, LDraw.org (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: Inline POV-Ray code?
|
| (...) So it appears as if we agree that L3P-generated objects don't really belong in official LDRAW part files. Once again this brings us back to the 0 INCLUDE suggestion. Imagine that ldraw.org (or someone else) distributes a separate set of part (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.ray)
|
|
