 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve Bliss wrote... (...) But it's not used! (...) But it's not used! (...) But it's not used! Why would future extensions use the CERTIFY statement if we don't have a use for it today? I agree WINDING may not directly make you think about BFC, but (...) (25 years ago, 14-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) 0 WINDING (CW|CCW) as the 'certify statement', rather than 0 CLIPPING ON ? Winding is local. Certification is sort-of local -- only the local file is certified, but the local setting affects whether subfiles (in the same reference branch) are (...) (25 years ago, 15-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve Bliss wrote in message ... (...) I think it is nice to have the winding state expressed explicitly. IMO part authors should be allowed to whatever winding they find most natural to work with (though you say CCW is desirable). It is perfectly (...) (25 years ago, 15-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Actually, I was thinking of CERTIFY, like a enable of the specific new metacommands. Example: If you have a 0 CERTIFY BFC would mean Enable or take into account the GFC related commands. besides the fact that it certifies that file has beeing (...) (25 years ago, 16-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) I forgot to add that you can have a file that is 'certified', but due to its nature (the lego part/sub-part) no clipping is applicable, but it can have correct point order (no bowties) and a defined winding (the default, or some expecifically (...) (25 years ago, 16-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
