Subject:
|
Re: Part number needed & New primitive submission
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 22:39:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
824 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37a1b18d.75603087@lugnet.com...
> [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
You missed my point. If the old primitives like box or box* have different
dimensions you still have to examine the primitive to determine it's
orientation and scale. So to conform this new primitive to a non-existent
standard is not right. You are saying that because most box primitives are
2x1x2 then all new box primitives should be 2x1x2, which I totally disagree
with. It is not saving the part author any time it is adding a lot more
work, since you already (I imagine most authors) need to look at a primitive
before they use it, then by making the primitive a 1x1x1 dimensional
primitive saves them time. I really don't think your argument that most
authors won't know how to use this primitive because it doesn't follow an
inconsistent 2x1x2 rule is valid.
Adam
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
