![]() Name-calling is usually what you do when the truth is handed to you on a platter, and you can't accept it, just as you go into denial about what's wrong with the 'code' you write. "Doug Broad" wrote in Copyclip referencing object without referenced object. Possible in a block substitution scheme for the original objects to be lost. Sets could cause most of a particular block to be selected. I don't think I've ever had most of the links broken but filtered selection These kinds of pointers preserve otherwise unreferenced objects. It is possible that purging can affect it since I don't believe ![]() The times it has happened to me, I have usually erased the referenced On what might have done that? That's all I'm looking for here.Īs for relinking them, that's the whole rub - we're talking *thousands* of In the times that has happened to you, have you ever come up with a theory ThereĪre just whole regions of it where all the 1005's have been swapped out to Wblocked or Cop圜lip'ed part of the drawing, right on top of itself. Roughly 75% of the markers have been set to 0. The 1005 handle to the newly copied entity.īut regardless, this particular drawing is a monster of a drawing, and The COPY command copies the 1005 entires as they are COPYCLIP translates Tony is flat wrong, and he has been wrong on this point before. Wrote in message does not break 1005 markers, it is not a specific isolated Referencing and referenced objects are copied and pasted together. The only way that copyclip will not break the link is when both the Remains unchanged and points to the original referenced object. Copy referencing object with or without referenced object. Copyclip referencing object with referenced object. Copyclip referencing object without referenced object. Is there anyone who knows what they are talking about, who might have some thoughts on this?ġ. Why don't you test this out before opening your mouth? I'm more than willing to send you any number of test drawings so that you can see for yourself. The only operation that doesn't translate the 1005 to the new handles is the AutoCAD Copy command. Wrote in message same as if you Wblock the objects out. There are numerous operations that don't translate 1005 xdata handles.ĪcadXTabs: MDI Document Tabs for AutoCAD 2009 > The only operation that doesn't translate the 1005 to the new handles is the AutoCAD Copy command. You wanted to know what operations can reset XDATA handle references. What, did you think I meant copying the referencing objects and the referenced objects too? 1005 handles that reference objects not also included in the operation are reset to 0. > actually, no Tony, you would be wrong on this. Is there anyone who knows what they are talking about, who might have some ![]() I'm more than willing to send you any number of test drawings so that youĬan see for yourself. The 1005 to the new handles is the AutoCAD Copy command. The only operation that doesn't translate Is referencing, those markers get updated to the new reference. ![]() If you Copyclip objects with 1005 markers, along with the objects the 1005 Wrote in message no Tony, you would be wrong on this. Xdata links in my work as well but there are rare times when the links There are many ways to break these kinds of references. Erasing the referenced objects cause broken links as well. Wblocking an entire file worked fine for me but wblocking parts out willĬopying referencing objects without the referenced objects cause oneīehavior wherase copying them with the referenced objects causes otherīehaviors. Citing a specificĬase where it(they) work(s) does not disprove Tony's response.įinding a specific cause other than those mentioned would probably require Your original (b) assertion was generalized indicatingĬopyclip/cutclip/pasteclip would never cause problems. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |