Subject:
|
Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 16:09:21 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
rui.martins@link#AvoidSpam#.pt
|
Viewed:
|
528 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Steve Bliss wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:15:40 GMT, Rui Martins <Rui.Martins@link.pt> wrote:
>
> Follow-up note: the more I look at this, the more I like using WINDING /
> CLIPPING instead of FACE. For reasons listed by Rui, for more flexibility,
> for the ability to enable clipping without specifying the winding.
>
> I see two possible approaches:
>
> 0 FACE [CW|CCW|DS|UNKNOWN]
>
> or
>
> 0 WINDING [CW|CCW|UNKNOWN]
> 0 CLIPPING [ON|OFF|ENABLED|DISABLED|0|1|-1]
>
> Steve
I don't need the WINDING UNKNOWN, since it's redundant with CLIPPING OFF.
When clipping is OFF you don't care the state of the winding.
I am curious, what is CLIPPING -1 ? an UNKNOWN, CLIPPING when not found
is assumed as OFF (the safe side), no UNKNOWN needed either.
Rui Martins
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
| (...) I put in WINDING UNKNOWN because it explicitly states that the winding is unknown (and probably bad). This way, you can effectively disable clipping for a particular section of (unchecked) code, without having to force clipping back on at the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Clipping / CCW / CW / INVERT
|
| On Wed, 6 Oct 1999 18:15:40 GMT, Rui Martins <Rui.Martins@link.pt> wrote: Follow-up note: the more I look at this, the more I like using WINDING / CLIPPING instead of FACE. For reasons listed by Rui, for more flexibility, for the ability to enable (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
18 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
|
|
|
|
