 | | Re: hello?... (was "where is latest version of lego geek code") —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) Probably not. Can't think of anyone I know of who might know, short of Todd maybe... I don't think it's been a really hot topic though... Anyone heard of anything recently? (Within the last couple years?) (...) "greater"... dunno about "later" (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.faq, lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: hello?... (was "where is latest version of lego geek code") —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Sorry, I was busy. Derek's is the more recent. (...) That'd be kinda cool on the web interface ..... Steve (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.faq, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Newer version of "lego geek code" —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Ok, now I've got two strikes against me. I went ahead and made my own new-ish version of the LGC WITHOUT talking to Derek (et all?) first. Strike one. Strike two is that I made an INTERPRETER and a DESCRIPTION of my new version of the LGC, but (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.faq, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Newer version of "lego geek code" —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | Neat!! Neat neat neat!!! I just *had* to dig up my LGC from last summer, which was a real mission since search is disabled just right now... oh well. ;-) This is what I got: --- How I feel about Castle: They make OTHER themes? Royal Knights: If I (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.faq, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Newer version of "lego geek code" —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, this has changed a bit in my version (unless you modified your code)... The old range of sets didn't quite go up as high as I thought it should. (I also added some new fields, like # of pieces (P), and a couple others) (...) Ooops... (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.faq, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Newer version of "lego geek code" —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Done and done. And also age & sex (and inner child too) are done... Thought about adding a special clause on that if anyone wrote something like: YB1980>f or something.... Think they'd have issues... DaveE (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.faq, lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Newer version of "lego geek code" —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Woohoo! I figured it out... Of course it requires me to dynamically re-format the javascript code depending on what browser you're using (and it'll ONLY work for MSIE and NN). But, it works. I think. I've tested it on Netscape 4.05, and MSIE (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Newer version of "lego geek code" —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) had never bothered to test MSIE with Netscapes's version-- it works. So never mind. I'll just use the Netscape version since it works in both. Unless, that is, someone informs me that the Netscape version doesn't work with earlier versions of (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
