 | | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress) —Paul Gyugyi
|
| | | The matrix math will not always invert, although if the matrix is a pure rotation (with no scaling or shears) the transpose of the matrix is the inverse. A better solution would be for the inliner to apply a start and a stop tag for each inlined (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Adding a closing tag (and unique ID) is a good idea, and something that should have been done from the start. It would solve the problem of identifying the chunk of code to reverse out, and restoring the original referencing file would be (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress) —John Bauman
|
| | | | Steve Bliss wrote in message <375bc53d.299725817@...et.com>... (...) In which case MPD would be better anyway. (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Lossless outlining (Was: [ldraw.org] Progress) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Agreed completely. For serious file-sharing, MPD is way better than inlining. Steve (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
