[LSC] BFC Ambiguities

[William Howard]

perhaps we should update the spec so it is an error
 
In my mind, certification is something that would apply to the whole file
and something like
 
0 BFC CERTIFY CCW
1 ...
4 ....
0 BFC NOCERTIFY
4 ...
3 ...
0 BFC CERTIFY CCW
4 ...
 
seems non-sensical
 

-----Original Message-----
From: lsc-bounces at ldraw.org [mailto:lsc-bounces at ldraw.org] On Behalf Of
Travis Cobbs
Sent: 12 October 2006 18:07
To: LDraw Standards Committee
Subject: Re: [LSC] BFC Ambiguities


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/ccc13d29/attachment.htm