Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:38:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2798 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:17:47 GMT, sparre@sys-323.risoe.dk (Jacob Sparre Andersen)
wrote:
> [ Still discussing http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt ]
> certification = "0" "CERTIFY" ( "BFC" | "NOBFC" ) { certification_flag }
> winding = "0" "WINDING" ( "CW" | "CCW" | "UNKNOWN" )
> clipping = "0" "CLIPPING" ( "ON" | "OFF" )
> invert = "0" "INVERT"
You'll pardon me if I use an abbreviated notation, and skip the " characters.
> > > This sounds correct, but do we want to eliminate this
> > > syntactic sugar?
> >
> > why not ?
>
> I like it.
It's hard to argue with that.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve: (...) Yes. (...) The argument against should be that it complicates the rendering significantly, but I don't think it does. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| [ Still discussing (URL) ] Rui: (...) Yes, but generally it is no big deal to certify a model file - and there is the suggested option for the renderers mentioned further down for the lazy. (...) Yes, but we aren't all that stupid. We will of cause (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
85 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
|
|
|
|
