Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Nov 1999 16:26:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1693 times
|
| |
|
|
Still discussing <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>.
Here's another syntactical approach to BFC. Like it, hate it, let us know what
you think.
Have a single 0 BFC statement, which allows specifications of various
options/settings. Something like:
0 BFC ( CERTIFY | NOCERTIFY | CLIP | NOCLIP | CW | CCW | NOWIND | INVERTNEXT )+
The + symbol indicates 1 or more occurrences of the preceeding group.
this could be written as:
0 BFC [CERTIFY | NOCERTIFY] [CLIP | NOCLIP] [CW | CCW | NOWIND] [INVERTNEXT]
... with the understanding that options could be specified in any order.
CERTIFY = the file is compliant
NOCERTIFY = the file is not compliant
CLIP = enable clipping
NOCLIP = disable clipping
CW = polygon winding is clockwise
CCW = polygon winding is anti-clockwise
NOWIND = polygon winding is variable
INVERTNEXT = the next command is a subfile reference, and it is inverted.
Only one option of each group would be allowed on a single statement. So CLIP
and NOCLIP couldn't be both specified on the same BFC line.
Any use of the 0 BFC command would indicate that the file is certified, except
for 0 BFC NOCERTIFY. So, strictly speaking, CERTIFY is redundant. Placing a 0
BFC CLIP or 0 BFC CW at the start of a file would be sufficient to certify that
file.
This approach has a couple of advantages:
- slightly simplify/streamline parsing, because only one meta-command is used.
- Allow us to get past the issue of "what statement should be used to mark
compliant files".
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Steve: (...) [...] It is definitely a useable option. How will the specification document look then? If it is easier to read that way, then you have one proponent for that solution. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- (...) (25 years ago, 19-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Line in the Sand
|
| OK, we've been discussing how to best extend the LDraw language to allow rendering engines to do backface-culling. We've got a pretty good agreement on most of what is needed. I think it would be productive, at this point, to work from a complete (...) (25 years ago, 20-Oct-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
|
|
|
|
