Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:39:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2095 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Lars C. Hassing wrote:
> I agree WINDING may not directly make you think about BFC, but I think
> I argued why WINDING is enough - please comment:
> http://www.lugnet.com/news/display.cgi?lugnet.cad.dev:3220
Is there a reason you prefer
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
clippable or not.
Clipping accumulates downward on the reference branch.
CLIPPING seems more like a 'certify statement' than WINDING. IMO.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
