Subject:
|
Re: Some Words To BFC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:25:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1047 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, John VanZwieten wrote:
> The other big problem (and what seems to be Rui's main point of contention)
> is the "certification tree" issue: Does a certified part have to be in a
> certified model, or in a certified submodel of a certified model, etc? I've
> been trying to bend my mind around this one, and here's the best I can come
> up with:
>
> 1. The BFC meta-command would have two usages:
> 0 BFC Certified means that the file may always be BFC'd, even if it's in an
> uncertified branch of another file. The only candidates for this would be
> truly solid files.
> 0 BFC Allowed means that the file may be BFC'd only if it's in a branch off
> a BFC Certified file, and the branch contains only BFC Certified or BFC
> Allowed files. This would be used for primitive files and non-solid
> subparts.
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, without relying on file location or 'type'.
Cool.
This would also simplify the task of editing programs, because they
wouldn't have any reason to deal with the issues of certifying model
files.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
