 | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) Yes. WINDING UNKNOWN allows a DAT author to specify what is happening in the file more precisely than CLIPPING OFF. Adding WINDING DOUBLE-SIDED would allow even more author-precision, but there is no practical difference between DOUBLE-SIDED (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | Steve Bliss wrote... (...) the (...) allow (...) OFF (...) they (...) reference (...) CLIPPING (...) Good point! (...) Or you could write: 0 CERTIFY BFC | 0 CERTIFY NOBFC 0 WINDING CW | 0 WINDING CCW | 0 WINDING UNKNOWN (I don't think "0 WINDING" (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:44:17 GMT, "Lars C. Hassing" <lch@ccieurope.com> wrote: Still discussing (URL) (...) Yes, but the 0 CERTIFY ( BFC | NOBFC ) format is more common. And it emphasizes that is one statement with various parameters. And it's less (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | | Steve Bliss wrote... (...) But it *does* imply CLIPPING ON. Otherwise clipping would be off. Remember, CLIPPING ON cannot turn clipping on if turned off in a superfile. If you render the part alone (just to view the single part) the CERTIFY should (...) (25 years ago, 10-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | [ Still discussing (URL) ] Steve: (...) [...] (...) "INVERTNEXT" is good. It makes the effect much more clear. (...) It gets much too messy when you mix the states of a parameter and the setting of that parameter. CERTIFY BFC does imply CLIPPING ON, (...) (25 years ago, 11-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) OK, I'll change this in the document. Changes from the last few days will be uploaded to GeoCities in the next hour or so. Steve (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Did you mean you=Steve or you=anyone? (...) I agree, the sequence should be illegal. My point was, does CERTIFY BFC change the value of the internal local_clipping variable, or not? My intention was that it does not. From a practical (...) (25 years ago, 12-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | [ Still discussing (URL) ] Steve: (...) You=anyone (kind of - English is a very imprecise language - "on" in French, "man" in Danish, ...) (...) That depends on how the program is written. You could imagine that the variable "local_clipping" isn't (...) (25 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | | Steve Bliss wrote ... (...) I think your pseudo-code delivers a fine evidence why the CERTIFY is unnecessary ;-) /Lars (25 years ago, 13-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | Oops! Forget a few important details in the psuedo-code! (...) The last line above should be: (AccumClip and LocalClip and (Winding != UNKNOWN) and Certified), (...) And the line above should be: If AccumClip and LocalClip And Certified Then (...) (25 years ago, 15-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | Steve Bliss wrote in message ... (...) No, WINDING is local! It does not affect subfiles, this is the very reason why we have invented the CLIPPING command. /Lars (25 years ago, 15-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Argh. You are correct, sir. Serves me right, trying to post quickly. Here's a correction: (...) Steve (25 years ago, 15-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
