[LSC] BFC Standard - meta-statement variations

[William Howard]

In the case of BFC CERTIFY CW and BFC CW CERTIFY these *should* be the same
as the de-facto standard made no distinction of interpretation due to order
of options.

Comparing the standards there also *should* be no difference between

(de-facto) == (new standard)
BFC CERTIFY CLIP CW == BFC CLIP CW
BFC CERTIFY CLIP == BFC CLIP
BFC CERTIFY CLIP CCW == BFC CLIP CCW
BFC NOCERTIFY NOWIND NOCLIP == BFC NOCERTIFY

However, I'm more than happy to edit the 9 affected files by hand

W

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dee [mailto:chris_w_dee at hotmail.com] 
Sent: 28 October 2006 14:30
To: 'William Howard'
Cc: 'LDraw Standards Committee'
Subject: RE: [LSC] BFC Standard - meta-statement variations


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