Let me put my 0.02 EUR into this discussion:
(a)
> but I believe previous tools needed to be able to locate them in the Parts folder
No, they didn't. They would have searched the usual folders, thus would have found them as s\... when referencing
them that way, or even as primitives.
The only reason that these files previously got put into the Parts folder was that people
wanted them to show up in MLCad's tree.
My opinion always was against that because doing so was just a workaround for a shortcoming of MLCad's GUI.
The files *are* subparts IMHO.
(b)
I don't think we need another new header line or type.
Subpart is just fine for these files.
(a)
> but I believe previous tools needed to be able to locate them in the Parts folder
No, they didn't. They would have searched the usual folders, thus would have found them as s\... when referencing
them that way, or even as primitives.
The only reason that these files previously got put into the Parts folder was that people
wanted them to show up in MLCad's tree.
My opinion always was against that because doing so was just a workaround for a shortcoming of MLCad's GUI.
The files *are* subparts IMHO.
(b)
I don't think we need another new header line or type.
Subpart is just fine for these files.