 | | | | | |
Steve:
> Still discussing <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>.
>
> Here's another syntactical approach to BFC. Like it, hate
> it, let us know what you think.
[...]
It is definitely a useable option. How will the
specification document look then? If it is easier to read
that way, then you have one proponent for that solution.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Steve:
>
> > Still discussing <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>.
> >
> > Here's another syntactical approach to BFC. Like it, hate
> > it, let us know what you think.
>
> [...]
>
> It is definitely a useable option. How will the
> specification document look then? If it is easier to read
> that way, then you have one proponent for that solution.
There are two possibilities for updating the document with this approach:
1. Just change the syntax expressions, and modify any syntax-specific
references. This would be the low-impact approach, with only cosmetic changes.
2. Rework the document. Add a new section which discusses the functional
requirements (must be able to turn clipping on and off, set the winding, and
invert subfiles), and change the existing "Language Extensions" section to
specify how the single 0 BFC statement implements the requirements.
I'll try doing #2 this weekend.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss wrote:
Still discussing <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>.
I posted a new version, with the short-form syntax, to
<http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspecv4.txt>
Comments?
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Steve:
> Still discussing <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>.
>
> I posted a new version, with the short-form syntax, to
> <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspecv4.txt>
>
> Comments?
My comments/changes will be preceded by a "J".
[...]
Subfile. A DAT file referenced from another file, via a linetype 1 command.
Or any file which is lower in the file-reference tree than the current file.
J Or any file which is the subfile of the current file (or thus of any of its
J subfiles).
J
1 Subpart. A DAT file which is only a portion of a complete element. Does
[...]
4 CERTIFY
4 Certified = (Command.Option = "BFC")
4 CLIPPING
4 LocalClip = (Command.Option = "ON")
J What does this "Command.Option" stuff mean?
[...]
There may be more comments later, but I have to go now.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Steve:
>
> > Still discussing <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>.
> >
> > I posted a new version, with the short-form syntax, to
> > <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspecv4.txt>
> >
> > Comments?
>
> My comments/changes will be preceded by a "J".
>
> [...]
> Subfile. A DAT file referenced from another file, via a linetype 1 command.
> Or any file which is lower in the file-reference tree than the current file.
>
> J Or any file which is the subfile of the current file (or thus of any of its
> J subfiles).
Er, OK. I'll put that in, but it seems redundant.
> 1 Subpart. A DAT file which is only a portion of a complete element. Does
> [...]
> 4 CERTIFY
> 4 Certified = (Command.Option = "BFC")
> 4 CLIPPING
> 4 LocalClip = (Command.Option = "ON")
>
> J What does this "Command.Option" stuff mean?
It means that I stuffed in the pseudo-code without rewriting the syntax-specific
sections. :(
Steve
| | | | | | |
