Subject:
|
Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Apr 2000 23:30:38 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
RUI.MARTINS@spamlessLINK.PT
|
Viewed:
|
1748 times
|
| |
|
|
> Here's the third message in my review of the "Line in the Sand" thread.
> This message covers my review from message #28 to message #40 in the
> thread (sorted by thread-view, not chronology). That's
> <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3219> for the start, and
> <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3210> for the finish.
>
> In <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3219>, Lars quoted & wrote:
>
> > > Maybe it would be better to drop WINDING UNKNOWN and specify that the default
> > > value for CLIPPING is ON. File authors would use CLIPPING OFF for double-sided
> > > or non-compliant sections of code. Note that the CLIPPING default would really
> > > only effect the main file in a rendering, because superfiles would pass down
> > > their clip-setting to subfiles.
> > >
> > > Curent_Clip = Local_Clip and Super_File_Clip
> > >
> > > Making this change would bring us closer to a consensus, it would simplify the
> > > spec and keep it clean, and would eliminate overlapping and potentially
> > > confusing functions.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I haven't reviewed the rest of the thread yet, so this may be a
> point/concesion I dropped.
I have to read this better to make an opinion, later !
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3213>, Rui made a long discussion
> pertaining to CLIPPING being a local option, and being able to clip
> subfiles, even when the parents aren't BFC-certified. I'm not going to
> quote it here, because I would have to include nearly the entire
> message. Please follow the link, and read the original message.
>
> There is one overriding reason why subfiles can *not* be BFC'ed when
> their referencing-superfiles are not certified: there is no way to tell
> whether the subfile should be inverted or normal. Allowing local
> clipping cannot override this limitation.
Now you don't like local clipping anymore ? too or tree mails before you were
in favour or am I mistaken ?
I should we make complicated spec for clipping, just because of one stupid case
the INVERT case, all other cases work well.
So why NOT just disable clipping for that specific rendering (user selectable)
and as soon as we find them all, they aren't that many, we just correct them.
Also every rendering that included a bfc reviewed/certified file would emediatly
benefit from it, and NOT after having checked all it's branches and correcting
all it's subfiles, where the reference was used.
Just think about it:
- Local clipping
- No Branch Clipping restriction
- Imediate benefits from BFCed files
- Invert cases, just disable clipping, by DAT file or PART file, programs are
easy to change to allow this, or more simply, just disable entire model
clipping until you correct the ofending reference.
P.S.
Is my drilling working or NOT ? 8)
see ya
Rui Martins
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) I think we're using different meanings here. By 'local clipping', I mean the clip-setting in a subfile disappears when that subfile is finished. It is not carried back up to the superfile, and it is not reinstated if the same subfile is used (...) (25 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| Here's the third message in my review of the "Line in the Sand" thread. This message covers my review from message #28 to message #40 in the thread (sorted by thread-view, not chronology). That's (URL) for the start, and (URL) for the finish. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
24 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
|
|
|
|
