Author Topic: Reading Fas  (Read 1850 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

whdjr

  • Guest
Reading Fas
« on: November 08, 2005, 09:00:22 AM »
I have a lisp file that I for R2000.  It was a lisp file and a dcl file.  I was trying stuff out so I made it in to a .fas file.  Well since that time I have made changes to the original lisp code for one reason or another and now it doesn't work.  I was trying to get it to work with 2006 but it is not working.  So my question is how can i 'open' my .fas file so that I can use my lisp code as a starting point for 2006?

I realize we are not supposed to be able to read .fas files but I know you guys are smart and this file is legitimately mine.

Thanks,

Amsterdammed

  • Guest
Re: Reading Fas
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2005, 10:31:14 AM »
Will,
in this

http://www.theswamp.org/forum/index.php?topic=6713.0

i askes about the safty of fas files and some guys mentioned that they had some way to read them. Maybe you can addrss them.

Bernd


JohnK

  • Administrator
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 10626
Re: Reading Fas
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2005, 10:44:48 AM »
Okay, I will say this.  I have seen applications (and tried them) that "decode" a FAS file, but i will never give anyone the location to where i got it. Besides, its a waste of time. For the most part they are garbage. If you have the source, use it. If you don't have the source anymore, re-write it! (It would be good practice. And you will prolly end up with a better progy anyways.)

I seriously doubt that anyone who has tried these tools will give them up.

Will, seriously, It sounds like this would be a good time to start over. Define your scope and start assembling the pieces.
TheSwamp.org (serving the CAD community since 2003)
Member location map - Add yourself

Donate to TheSwamp.org

whdjr

  • Guest
Re: Reading Fas
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2005, 11:01:17 AM »
Thanks for nothing Se7en   :x


No really, thanks for replying and don't take my earlier comment seriously.
I have started recoding all over again and is it much simpler and better than what I already had.  I remember when I wrote that code I didn't really understand how it worked so I will probably be better off rewriting it as you suggest.

Thanks,
 :-) :-)