To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.devOpen lugnet.cad.dev in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / 3405
3404  |  3406
Subject: 
Re: Line in the Sand
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev
Date: 
Thu, 2 Dec 1999 16:54:59 GMT
Viewed: 
1659 times
  
Still discussing:
<http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspec.txt>
and now
<http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspecv4.txt>

I posted an update to the v4 spec just now.  It includes the changes suggested
by Jacob.

Things have been quiet lately, so I want to throw out a couple of questions:

Does anyone have an opinion on whether it would be preferable to go with the
original syntax approach (having several meta-statements), or the newer approach
(a single meta-statement, with options)?

Original:
0 CERTIFY ( BFC | NOBFC )
0 WINDING ( CW | CCW | UNKNOWN )
0 CLIPPING ( ON | OFF )
0 INVERTNEXT

Newer:
0 BFC [CERTIFY|NOCERTIFY] [CLIP|NOCLIP] [CW|CCW|NOWIND] [INVERTNEXT]

Will the newer specification address everybody's issues?

Maybe we can get this finalized before the end of the year.  Well, a guy can
dream, right? ;)

Steve



Message has 3 Replies:
  Re: Line in the Sand
 
Steve: (...) I kind of like the newer approach. Play well, Jacob ---...--- -- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk -- -- Web...: <URL:(URL) -- ---...--- (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
  Re: Line in the Sand
 
(...) at first i misread that as: (...) and thought to myself "wow, Steve's in a really cynical mood".. hehe.. guess i'm just projecting my own cynicism... J (25 years ago, 3-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
  Re: Line in the Sand
 
Steve Bliss wrote... (...) I prefer the newer with only one new meta-statement. This easily identifies commands related to BFC. However, the syntactical change doesn't solve the discussion about the CERTIFY option, see later. I have some suggestions (...) (25 years ago, 4-Dec-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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR