LDraw.org Discussion Forums
[LSC Request] End of header meta command - Printable Version

+- LDraw.org Discussion Forums (https://forums.ldraw.org)
+-- Forum: Models and Parts (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-18.html)
+--- Forum: Parts Authoring (https://forums.ldraw.org/forum-19.html)
+--- Thread: [LSC Request] End of header meta command (/thread-8081.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Roland Melkert - 2013-02-05

I feel an extra meta is somewhat over kill.

Why not use a double empty line or something or some other pattern.

Or move a mandatory header meta to the bottom, so you know the header ends after that/those line(s).


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Tim Gould - 2013-02-05

That would work too. Then all 0 // can be ignored.

Although I'd prefer 0 !NOTES (or similar) so we can include other header info. For example if a part is made by a script the settings used to generate it could be included.

And reading of the header can be terminated at the first 0 // or line type 1-5.

Tim


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Chris Dee - 2013-02-05

This would also mean that I/we only need to update the 139 official parts the "need work" rather than all official parts.


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Tim Gould - 2013-02-05

As far as I'm concerned I'd see it as voluntary. But I guess it would be nice to change the "Needs work" files to the new meta. But they 'need work' anyway so I don't think it's necessary. Your call.

Tim


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Roland Melkert - 2013-02-05

If we go this way might I suggest using a more global meta with an eye on forwards compatibility.

Something like

Code:
0 !PTTAGS needsWork, placeHolder, someOtherFutureThing, etcEtcEtc

And also state when this meta is found it also indicates the end of the header. Just my 2cts.


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Travis Cobbs - 2013-02-05

I believe that the purpose of the 0 !NEEDSWORK was intended to be as a container for a description of what work is needed. So it would (presumably) be followed by a text description of the work. This wouldn't work with a single meta-command holding multiple flags. Also, "needs work" isn't related to the Part Tracker. It's an acknowledgement that the file has issues, but is still ok for inclusion in the official library once certified.


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Chris Dee - 2013-02-06

The meta statement sequence defined in the header spec is enforced for official parts (except maybe that !HELP lines can appear anywhere), and I'd still prefer !HISTORY to be the last header info as that is the part that grows.

My preference would be to add zero or more "0 !NEEDSWORK " meta statements immediately before the !HISTORY.

Every official part has at least one !HISTORY line, because the Parts Update mechanism generates one, so header parsers can then ignore everything after the last !HISTORY line.


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Steffen - 2013-02-07

I find the introduction of a dedicated "end of header" meta complete overkill:

The header ends when the first line of type 1,2,3,4 or 5 is encountered.

To achieve this, I think that the introduction of a
0 !NEEDSWORK
meta would be a good idea.

All comments starting with
0 //
are intended for human-reading and should not carry semantic information for tools IMHO.


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Allen Smith - 2013-02-07

0 header
0 stuff
0 with no
0 defined ending

0 !TEXMAP etc etc.
1 a real part
0 !TEXMAP END

QED

I happen to agree that the header is too onerous. I have difficulty envisioning usecases for some of its contents. The !HISTORY lines in particular belong in CMS metadata; they do not belong in the source file itself. I don't see much value in adding a !NEEDSWORK because I don't see why that data needs to be machine-readable either.

But you cannot make the case that the header is currently machine-parseable. Nor can you, without an end-of-header designator, possibly write a future-proof header delineator.

I'm not going to get worked up about this; there are far more important issues. I'm just trying to set the record straight.

Allen


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Roland Melkert - 2013-02-07

Travis Cobbs Wrote:I believe that the purpose of the 0 !NEEDSWORK was intended to be as a container for a description of what work is needed. So it would (presumably) be followed by a text description of the work.

You could still follow with normal comment lines, why introduce yet another comment like meta?

I still think you could indicate end of header with a pattern (double empty line for example)