Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:28:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3674 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote ...
> I don't remember *why* INVERTNEXT is needed. But I am sure it is needed.
Is this a joke? You argue very well in "Inversion" in "Language Extension
Functionality" about the 3D tube ;-)
/Lars
Sorry if I missed a pun.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) Nope, not a joke. I seriously didn't remember the reason(s) why other approaches wouldn't work as well as INVERTNEXT. I poked around old messages a little bit, I think I remember better now. Let me (attempt to) explain: When this whole BFC (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| (...) Matrix-inversions are not evil. But for some reason, using them to actually invert subfiles is evil (as opposed to using INVERTNEXT to invert subfiles). If I reallly needed an answer to this, I'd go read past messages. But I *do* remember: a) (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-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
|
|
|
|
