|
|
 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) I agree to some extent. But now it's there, like it or not. I have very little (if any?) use of it and yes it annoys me a little. The deleting of extra blank lines (used to group lines some way related to eachother) that makes the dat code a (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) For me, the argument comes back to process vs. product, as was discussed in the previous thread. Additionally, it raises the question of whether LDraw is a tool for the end-users or a tool for the reviewers. The extended period of discussion (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) I'm intrigued - the only point in that last sentence that differentiates the "indecipherable gobbledygook" from the inline POV is that the latter "yields a greatly superior output image". It's certainly no less invisible to the end-user, nor (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
| | | | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) I know, I know. Fair call. I should have learnt years ago never to claim I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. That is lame. Please pretend I murfled both hissy fits. I find it much too difficult to resist attacks against my person and (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) Nowhere have you presented an argument that differ in any way from the "collective dogma," so I don't see why your argument should be treated any differently. (...) Don't tease. In your previous reply you said that you were done with the (...) (14 years ago, 3-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
|
