Subject:
|
Re: Mirrored parts and studs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:02:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1456 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tore Eriksson wrote:
> I am generally against new meta-commands, but inspired by "0 BFD INVERTNEXT",
> how about something like "0 MIRRORING KEEPPOSITIVENEXT". The more accurate
> syntax, I leave to the gurus...
We definitely don't want to do this. It's unnecessary, because the sign of the
determinant in the matrix specifying the sub-part tells you whether the sub-part
is mirrored. The above might allow the program to do less math, but that's not
an acceptable reason for introducing a meta-command that is susceptible to human
error. (Plus, in many cases the program will have calculated the determinant
for other reasons anyway.)
--Travis Cobbs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Mirrored parts and studs
|
| I am generally against new meta-commands, but inspired by "0 BFD INVERTNEXT", how about something like "0 MIRRORING KEEPPOSITIVENEXT". The more accurate syntax, I leave to the gurus... /Tore (21 years ago, 1-Jul-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
