| |
[followups set to lugnet.cad.dev]
On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 06:38:54 GMT, "Adam Howard" <abhoward10@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > I realize that primitives which are sized to 1LDU are easier to use, but a
> > set of primitives which don't all use the same sizing are *harder* to use
> > overall, because the author has to remember which sizing to use for which
> > primitives.
> >
> > Steve
>
> You're right about that, but if you look at the primitives not all are based
> on a 2x2x2 cube, some are based on a 2x1x2 cube, or a 1x1x2 cube(maybe).
Looks like box.dat is the only one based on a 2x2x2 cube, all the other
box*.dat primitives are 2x1x2, Y[0,1]. So this new primitive should be
written the same way.
> Not to mention some have top and side faces, missing lines on two sides,
> ect. To use them logically you still have to look at the primitive before
> using it (unless it's one you use a lot). The naming conventions are not
> very clear, but supposedly you should be able to look at the name and
> determine the primitives configuration.
Clear naming would be nice, but we never came up with a descriptive naming
convention (for this set of primitives) that was simple enough to be
useful.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission
|
| Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:37a1b18d.756030...net.com... (...) but a (...) use (...) which (...) based (...) before (...) You missed my point. If the old primitives like box or box* have different dimensions you (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
