> 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".
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".