Subject:
|
Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 11:06:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
729 times
|
| |
|
|
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote in message ...
> Lars mentions the problem of "uncertified" parts using
> "certified" primitives.
>
> Is it so much of a problem?
>
> <much thinking>
>
> I can't find any other easy solution than using different
> names for the "certified" versions of the _primitives_.
>
> That way we shouldn't get in trouble - except for the double
> number of files in the primitives directory.
Certified primitives are harmless when used by old uncertified
parts, so there's no need to create special certified versions.
And in stead of fixing parts to reference the new names, you
might just as well certify the parts.
> A more advanced solution would be to add a flag to the FACE
> meta-command that has the effect that the current file and
> everything it includes is rendered as DOUBLE-SIDED no matter
> what FACE meta-commands the included files might contain.
This flag is already defined, it is called "0 FACE DOUBLE-SIDED"
or "0 FACE UNKNOWN" !
It has the meaning that the next section of the dat file is
not certified, and ALL following faces (including those in
subfiles) should be drawn.
/Lars
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: CW/CCW, vertex sequence, co-planar, convex
|
| Lars mentions the problem of "uncertified" parts using "certified" primitives. Is it so much of a problem? <much thinking> I can't find any other easy solution than using different names for the "certified" versions of the _primitives_. That way we (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
53 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
