| |
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:06:40 GMT, Paul Gyugyi <paul@gyugyi.com> wrote:
> 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 file. Perhaps "0 INLINE START "
> followed by some pseudo-random string (like mime-enclosures, if you've
> ever seen them in-the-raw). Surround the inlined file with
> identical tags and have the first line be the commented-out
> original. In this way, the inlining operation would be completely
> reversable.
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 do-able, but unless
the transform matrix is invertable, the original subfile can't be
recreated.
Or the inliner could be recoded to wrap LDLite's 0 TRANSFORM meta-statement
around the inlined code, instead of transforming the code directly. That
would provide a completely reversible solution. But it wouldn't be
LDraw-compatible. :(
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
39 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
|
|
|
|
