LDraw.org Discussion Forums

Full Version: Minifig Torso patterned part naming convention extended
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
With the (currently 7 x 16) new minifig torsos in the Collectable Minifig series, the existing 973pXX naming convention cannot cope.

Please use 973pc[series : 1-7][sequence : 1-9,a-f].dat for these.
cant't we go the way extending 973pXX to 973pXXXX ?

(as we don't have a 8.3 filename limit anymore.)
Yes. What exactly are you suggesting?
Ah, sorry, this was a mistake on my side. I misread
973pc[series : 1-7][sequence : 1-9,a-f].dat
for
973c[series : 1-7][sequence : 1-9,a-f].dat
and was not happy to see the "p" go away. This was an error on my side.
As long as we keep the "p" for "patterned", I'm happy with whatever numerical code follows.
Sorry for the confusion.
Chris Dee Wrote:Please use 973pc[series : 1-7][sequence : 1-9,a-f].dat for these.

I take it you want to use a single digit hex value for the seq? If so you need to add '0' or you will only have 15 items in a sequence.

And that's assuming LEGO wont come up with a special collection edition of 20 items or something Smile
The minifigs in each series already have sequence numbers on the checklist, so using 0-f would be too confusing.

So, make that 973pc[series : 1-7][sequence : 1-9,a-g].dat (a=10...g=16).
Chris Dee Wrote:With the (currently 7 x 16) new minifig torsos in the Collectable Minifig series, the existing 973pXX naming convention cannot cope.

Please use 973pc[series : 1-7][sequence : 1-9,a-f].dat for these.

I would guess, then, that you're not going to renumber 973 any time soon?

-- joshua
Even if I were, why would this be a problem? 3814pc[1-7][1-9a-g].dat wouldn't even break the legacy 8.3 naming convention.

If I did create 230+ renamed files and their ~Moved to files, would you be there to cast some certify votes? Or would we just clog the Parts Tracker with Hold votes for non-BFC and other trivial problems?
I suspect the latter. Once we get a chance to 'fix' things (even if they're not so much broken as imperfect) we do tend to leap at it.

I vote for leaving them.

Tim
I don't have a problem with leaving it be. Most users don't model based on the number anyway. That said, I though we determined that trivial MoveTo items could bypass PT altogether?
Pages: 1 2