[LSC] BFC Standard - meta-statement variations

[Chris Dee]

William

Actually, I said I could/would edit "BFC CERTIFY INVERTNEXT" to "BFC
INVERTNEXT", because I believe the tools used to verify these files would
treat these equally.

Do you have the same level of confidence (or could you check) whether your
other suggested changes are similarly impotent. For example - are the files
with "BFC CW CERTIFY" really "BFC CERTIFY CW"?

To be clear, I can make the changes to the unofficial library as soon as the
standard is ratified. Those in the official library, I'd prefer to do when
we rework the headers for the CA. At that point, I'll be taking a copy of
the official library in which to make those changes. I can do these at the
same time.

Chris  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lsc-bounces at ldraw.org [mailto:lsc-bounces at ldraw.org] On Behalf Of
> William Howard
> Sent: 28 October 2006 13:13
> To: 'LDraw Standards Committee'
> Subject: RE: [LSC] BFC Standard - meta-statement variations
> 
> The following meta-statement variations exist in files in the official
> library or on the tracker
> 
> BFC CERTIFY CLIP CW (4)
> BFC CERTIFY CLIP (1)
> BFC CERTIFY CLIP CCW (1)
> BFC NOCERTIFY NOWIND NOCLIP (1)
> BFC CW CERTIFY (2)
> 
> BFC CERTIFY INVERTNEXT (165)
> 
> Chris has said that it is possible to edit these without forcing them
> through the tracker.  Apart from the last one, do we want to modify the
> syntax to permit any of the other 5 variations?
> 
> W
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LSC mailing list
> LSC at ldraw.org
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc