[LSC] BFC Ambiguities

[Travis Cobbs]

You're correct that the spec does indeed allow for this.  I put it as a
warning in LDView, because it seemed to me that repeating the certify
statement was not something that was intended to happen based on the
description of the certify statement.

Maybe I should update LDView to only spit out that warning if no other BFC
options are on the same line.  I'll post a query on Lugnet to get people's
opinions.

--Travis

On 10/12/06, William Howard <william at howard-family.fsworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  >I certainly wasn't aware that MLCad changed all BFC statements to that
> format
> It only seems to do it if you hide and then unhide the command - very
> strange.
> But that doesn't change the fact that the specification permits BFC
> CERTIFY INVERTNEXT (as well as BFC INVERTNEXT CERTIFY)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LSC mailing list
> LSC at ldraw.org
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://five.pairlist.net/pipermail/lsc/attachments/20061012/18fe7208/attachment.htm