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 - Steffen - 2014-01-06

the question is the other way around: why introduce it when you can do without.


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Michael Horvath - 2014-01-06

That could also be solved by creating a new line type just for headers.


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Tim Gould - 2014-01-06

Well there are plenty of reasons given in this thread as to why it would be useful. So the onus is on you, I'm afraid.

So again I ask, why do you think we should not have it?


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Tim Gould - 2014-01-06

That's a good solution. But you've seen how hard it is even to get a simple optional meta added. Do you really think we're going to add a new linetype?

Wink


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Michael Horvath - 2014-01-07

A couple of reasons in favor of the new meta command:

1. Without it software authors will need to write extra code which takes time and effort.
2. Also, software will become more complex and relatively more likely to have bugs.
3. Extra code will slow the software down, which can matter maybe when batch operating on a long list of files.
4. Having a command like this is less ambiguous for new part or model authors, meaning they will not get as confused.


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Steffen - 2014-01-07

no, I've read all the posts. none of them carry an argument why you need a new token and cannot do without. they just talk about what could be done with some header data,
but they do not state why the existing stuff isn't enough.
I understand that you really want that new token, but each time you want to add something to such a standard, you need to prove why it is needed and existing stuff isn't enough.
it is not up to me to prove the opposite.
we need to minimize the syntax, avoid clutter and save time.
and the existing syntax suffices to detect the end of the header.
so that's 4 arguments you need to counter.
there's a 5th: if you make the tag optional, the tools supporting it anyway need a fallback implementation for files not carrying that token. and that fallback implementation would exactly read as I wrote above. Thus, this code anyway needs to be written. Thus, you do not need the tag. The code already suffices.


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Roland Melkert - 2014-01-07

I assumed it's an presentation issue, you don't want to see the first part author comment block directly after the true header in e.g. a part description while using the part bin.

The meta would allow for nicer presentation of part info hints etc.


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Tim Gould - 2014-01-07

> no, I've read all the posts. none of them carry an argument why you need a new token and cannot do without. they just talk about what could be done with some header data,

Not to you. To others they do.

> but they do not state why the existing stuff isn't enough.

Yes they do.

> I understand that you really want that new token, but each time you want to add something to such a standard, you need to prove why it is needed and existing stuff isn't enough.
it is not up to me to prove the opposite.

Not true. That's merely an argument that the conservative position is the right position. I take a progressive position that an improvement is worth doing unless it has negative consequences that outweight its benefits. This doesn't.

> we need to minimize the syntax, avoid clutter and save time.

I do agree with this to some degree. But the new meta would avoid a different sort of clutter (see point below).

> and the existing syntax suffices to detect the end of the header.

As has been pointed out several times, no they don't. They suffice to define an end of the header + lines of comment. Go look at the number of parts on the parts tracker with "0 // Some comment that has no place in the header" at the end of the header.

> there's a 5th: if you make the tag optional, the all tools anyway need a fallback implementation for files not carrying that token. and that fallback implementatioh would exactly read as I wrote above. Thus, this code anyway needs to be written. Thus, you do not need the tag. The code already suffices.

Ideally I'd like to see it made compulsory to ease coding (see Michael and Allen's posts) but I know that would never happen due to LDraw conservatism. Conversion of the library could be done using the existing rules.

This argument is basically "because you offered a compromise your proposal obviously has no merit".


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Tim Gould - 2014-01-07

Let's drop "0 ////". I agree that it's a bad choice.

If we can settle on a meta I'll add it to LDMakeList too. It will make for a cleaner parts.xml file.

Tim


Re: [LSC Request] End of header meta command - Tim Gould - 2014-01-07

Roland Melkert Wrote:The meta would allow for nicer presentation of part info hints etc.

Exactly. It also makes it slightly easier to read by a person who can see that "oh! the header info ends here, the rest is part author chit chat".