VP name in use but not true

[digitalcarbon]

im trying to name a vp 2/A6.3 and it tells me i have something already named 2/A6.3.

but i do not. please see attached.

what am i missing?

[Ray Libby]

Possibly something besides a VP has the name, a name can only be used once in all resources.

[digitalcarbon]

that is not good : (

[Petri]

It is good. What would be the point if a name could be used many times?

[Cris with no H]

I'm gonna have to disagree with ya there, Petri. The ability to be able to name a saved view and a sheet layer and a viewport with the same names (i.e. "plan") would be great. Most users can keep their names straight on their own, especially since these are discreet types of objects. While I agree that a smart user SHOULD name everything differently, I have always viewed this as a program limitation. As a silver lining, it does get offices into discussions of CAD standards more quickly, because you need to come up with naming systems to avoid name conflicts with the current VW.

Cris Dopher

[Petri]

You're short of words, then.

OK. The point of unique names is that with them each object can be identified unambiguosly. Parametric objects can be associated with each other. A named object can be instantaneously found in the document. And so on.

You can disagree to your heart's content, but you are wrong. Especially in what you think is the silver lining: your silver lining has a dark cloud.

[digitalcarbon]

look, i do not have 2 viewports w/ the same name. i agree that would be bad, but there should not be any conflict w/ anything else w/ the same name.

if you ran a search then you could see 2 item w/ the same name, one is a vp and the other is something else.

the point is, my vp name is referenced to the elevation key marker that is on the plan and the next interior elevation is 2/A6.3. i have not other vp named 2/A6.3 something is wrong.

[Petri]

Everything is as designed and as it should be. Nothing is wrong.

Hey, you must have a surname? (Or a first name: Dave Digitalmechanics or something?) Surely you realise that to distinguish you from all other Daves (or Digitalmechanicses), you need a unique name!

[Cris with no H]

Digital, a basic tenet of VW is that no two objects can have the same name, regardless of object type. Period. This is something you'll have to live with for now.

CD

[digitalcarbon]

yea that unique name is 2/A6.3 as a Viewport

show me were i have another viewport named 2/A6.3. see posted images above.

i do not have a viewport named 2/A6.3

so what in my file is named 2/A6.3? a symbol? Layer? saved sheet?

if i was trying to name 2 viewports 2/A6.3 then i could see why i would get an error message. but i am not. something is still wrong.

[Guest]

It may be that another class, layer, symbol, etc has that same name.

Have you checked to make sure no other object has this as their unique ID name (under the data pane of the OIP) as well as no other layer/class/symbol/resource/object ?

[VectorGeek]

You're short of words, then.

OK. The point of unique names is that with them each object can be identified unambiguosly. Parametric objects can be associated with each other. A named object can be instantaneously found in the document.

I have to agree with Petri here (OMG did I actually say that?). The purity of unique naming is helpful for reasons beyond CAD Standards, namely VS.

V-G, who is now smitten with Petri.

[digitalcarbon]

oook, that is like saying that if you name your dog dave then you can not name your son dave.

if you have 2 sons named dave, i could see where that would be a problem.

if the computer can figure out the difference between a layer named dave and a saved sheet named dave then i am sure it can do it with viewports and other objects.

[VectorGeek]

Darryl and my other brother Darryl disagree.

Larry.

Edited October 18, 2007 by VectorGeek

[digitalcarbon]

i knew someone was going to say that!

soooo then i should be able to name my viewport Darryl and some other object Darryl

thanks for agreeing w/ me : )

[VectorGeek]

I can't name a specific instance as my mind is mush today, but I swear there have been times in scripting where a unique naming structure has been an advantage. Maybe my esteemed colleague Petri can weigh in....

[grant_PD]

Can't you use identifiers to circumnavigate?

layer name: ball_layer

class name: ball_class

vp name:ball_vp

symbol name: ball_sym

[Dieter @ DWorks]

I always use prefixes like:

MS: MuurStijl (WallStyle)

LA: LijnArchering (Hatch)

ZV: ZichtVenster (ViewPort)

TZ: TekenZone (Saved View)

...

except for symbols, layers and classes.

Why? Because to have unique names and to know what they are.

[Petri]

It may be that another class, layer, symbol, etc has that same name.

Tsk tsk. Layers have their own name space so it can't be a layer.

To find out who the Offending Object is one can use VectorScript:

Create a new VectorScript (yes, Palette-1 & Script-1 are fine names) and paste this in:

MESSAGE(GETTYPE(GETOBJECT('2/A6.3')));

then say OK and double-click the script name in the palette. You may get a number.

[islandmon]

Thinkin' way back.... twas the spring of '88 when this issue needed to be resolved once and for all. What happens when you import Named Objects into another file with numerous Objects & Records with similar names ?

The decision was made then that each Object can have only one Name associated with it... period .. end of story. Dave you're about 20 years too late to sway any opinions on this one.

Keep It Simple Stupid !

[Petri]

I can't name a specific instance as my mind is mush today, but I swear there have been times in scripting where a unique naming structure has been an advantage. Maybe my esteemed colleague Petri can weigh in....

In my generic utilities script collection (nearly 300 scripts & canned routines)

- GetName: used in 33

- SetName: used in 13

- *name (wildcard + name) in 133

Of course there is repetition and maybe *name is not a perfectly valid query, but nevertheless.

Outside scripting a typical example are room numbers: at least my Space object checks the uniqueness using the object name.

Why can't we have object names, symbol names, class names etc separately? Well, perhaps we could - but since everything in VW is an object...

About these viewports: I am promoting a naming convention that looks like this:

PLAN-3rd floor-1:100

ELEVATION-East-1:200

Works very well in Organizer, especially Visibilities. Something like "2/A6.3" looks too impressive to my humble taste and mushy mind.

[altoids]

The debate may have been settled 20 years ago, but it was settled the wrong way. If I, as a end user, want to call everything the same name, it is not up to some idiotic software or software engineer to tell me otherwise. If VW doesn't have a private tag for every viewport name (and for every other object) then we are in more trouble than I suspected.

Naming conventions should be a convenience, not a decree. This here is the western world, where we value freedom more than anything else. Just to show a little solidarity with digitalmechanics I am going to name every viewport 2/A6.3 and every file in my project folder 2/A6.3. If we all lay down and accept decisions just because they were made 20 years ago, the Earth would still be the center of the universe.

And finally, digitalmechanics plight illustrates why the rule of only one name per object is so idiotic, because it forces us to modify our behavior for the software. It should always be the other way around. And without this skull-numbing rule, digitalmechanics problem would cease to exist.

[mike m oz]

Altoids, have you never had the experience of inadvertantly trying to overwrite a file because you didn't have a unique file name? Computers aren't clever enough to discriminate between when you want two files with exactly the same name and when you want to overwrite the older version. Unique names are necessary to prevent confusion and therefore mistakes from ocurring. It is a fundamental principle of computing. Maybe in the future, but for now...

[ccroft]

" it is not up to some idiotic software or software engineer"

I just wanted to say that I don't agree that this software, or it's architects and engineers are idiotic.

I'll leave it at that.

[altoids]

Ah, maybe idiotic was too general and strong, but the idea that the software imposes artificial limits on me is idiotic.

And logically and functionally, I don't see why I can't call as many files as I want the same name. It may be idiotic to do so, but better me than the software. Anyway, to some extent you can on the Mac, provided the files are of a different type. I can have a folder called Foo and a VW file called Foo and an mp3 called Foo, and so on, without any problems or confusion.