 | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:i86oessafp98dp6...4ax.com... (...) These are both very good criticisms of my proposal--so I'll just modify my proposal :) If we fix all the official parts, then the renderer doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 6-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) OK, here's a counter-proposal: don't require all parts/primitives to be BFC'able, and allow both BFC-ready and BFC-not-ready files in the same rendering. This reintroduces the concept of having a single meta-statement at the start of each (...) (24 years ago, 7-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC [DAT]
|
| Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:dq3sesgb6vsh8kd...4ax.com... (...) flips (...) than (...) with (...) for (...) in (...) This makes a lot of sense to me. You are right, checking one flag per part file should not take too (...) (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: Some Words To BFC
|
| (...) Ooo, I like it. We'd flag which files are always "right-side-out" and which ones might be mis-inverted by legacy part-files. That doesn't break the reference-chain dependency entirely, but it does allow us to specify where it must apply, (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
