Author Topic: STDLib  (Read 22198 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 10668
Re: STDLib
« Reply #60 on: July 16, 2007, 11:26:44 PM »
No im not boycotting any effort. (To each his own; Im happy if [you] are.)

OpDCL Contrib/Dev:
I dont have anything against any of the developers/contributors in any way. Their efforts are appreciated and i have attempted to map out a ``production project'' using OpDCL i hope to start development on soon. So i most likely will have comments, bug reports, etc then.

Loyalty aside; do i think it was handled very well? No. (its not very polite to come into someone else's house unannounced and say that the party has moved across the street to better support Bud drinkers.)

Face spite:
I am not punishing anything or anyone. My help will be given to those who ask, but i will not formally contribute. For me to even *hint* that my with-holding my efforts or input on a project will hinder it in any way is absurd! I may have certain skills or experiences but they are in no way special. I am merely a student of AutoLisp. I can only offer ``one of nine ways'' to accomplish a given task.

Building a stdLib:
I have already started my outline, thoughts, `future/plan' outline thing (whatever you call it), notes, criteria, etc. on a standard lib (I even have a few procedures built--and I called Mark this afternoon and asked him if i could use theswamp's CVS-) but it will be for my own use and developed by me. (serving the CAD community since 2003)
Member location map - Add yourself

Donate to


  • Seagull
  • Posts: 17750
  • Have thousands of dwgs to process? Contact me.
Re: STDLib
« Reply #61 on: July 17, 2007, 12:36:00 AM »
Thanks for responding John.

I'm confused, it sure sounded like you were making a boycott statement but if you say you weren't I'll take you at your word rather than what I understood from your previous post.

If you decide to help the OpenDCL project, directly or indirectly, I know it will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Good luck with your library, if only has but a few authors I've no doubt it will come to fruition.
Engineering Technologist CAD Automation Practitioner
Automation ▸ Design ▸ Drafting ▸ Document Control ▸ Client


  • Guest
Re: STDLib
« Reply #62 on: July 17, 2007, 09:23:38 AM »
i see that it is about odcl, all my previous comments in this topic were about to the original stdlib by reni urban, just want it to point that... have fun.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2007, 09:28:45 AM by LE »


  • Swamp Rat
  • Posts: 851
Re: STDLib
« Reply #63 on: July 17, 2007, 12:27:35 PM »
OK so I've been quietly following this thread and i have a few observations / questions.

First, I use - I guess - what you guys are calling a STDlib: I have "common functions" wrapped in a separate .fas file that gets loaded when a drawing file is opened / created.  Some of the things I don't like are when I want to share a specific routine - like an ODCL routine: I have to painstakingly remember where all the lib subs are and try to remember to include them in the shared routine.  This is a mess.  However, this is offset by the ease of managing these subs in one place!

I don't know if any one here played around with Chad's "SharpLISP" thing, but one of the aspects I found interesting (and correct me, C++ guys, if I'm wrong) was the way in which ARX applications used "Include files".  These were files with standard functions defined  - .h files I think they were.  What I liked is that you still have a central place for common functions, but they got "included" in the separate compiled applications.

So I thought about adopting a similar approach to AutoLISP.  Instead of having my common library as a standalone fas file I would "include" the functions I needed for individual routines when I made up my fas projects.  Now I know that not being separate namespace, as additional fas files are loaded, the previous defuns will be overwritten: but If they come from the same included file it doesn't matter - right?

So the benefit would that I still have common / shared routines defined in a single location, but compiled routines would be stand-alone.  Once Opendcl 4 is released I'm going to restructuring all my routines to take advantage of some of Owens enhancements.  I thinking I may incorporate an "include" file type system as well.

So a typical .prj file might look something like: (note the :OWN-LIST atrribute)

Code: [Select]
;;; VLisp project file [V2.0] jb06 saved to:[S:/jbTools Application/jbTools 2007 v1.2/06 - Detail Manager] at:[7/17/07]
  ("S:/jbTools Application/jbTools 2007 v1.2/00 - Common/jbCommonFunctions"
  "\\\\Server\\Data\\Support\\jbTools Application\\jbTools 2007 v1.2\\06 - Detail Manager\\temp"
;;; EOF
James Buzbee
Windows 8