Subject:
|
Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:15:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3204 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Lars C. Hassing wrote:
> Steve Bliss wrote...
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Lars C. Hassing wrote:
> >
> > > The BFC-checker program must refuse to certify a part if any subfile
> > > is not certified. So that flag would be implied in CERTIFY.
> >
> > I don't think that's necessary. If a subfile is not certified, then the
> > renderer will not apply BFC processing to the subfile.
>
> If a subfile is not certified, you cannot know whether to reference it
> using INVERTNEXT or not.
> You would have to turn clipping off, but why not certify the subfile first?
Hmm, I see your point. Except that the desired orientation of a subfile
may be known before that subfile is certified. Here's a (somewhat
contrived) example: we've discussed defining the standard orientation of
all primitive files to be outward and upward. So, we know what direction
4-4disc.dat is going to face, even before it's certified.
Even non-primitive subfiles may be in the same situation: the author knows
what the orientation is going to be, but hasn't cleaned up the subfile yet.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| Steve Bliss wrote... (...) If a subfile is not certified, you cannot know whether to reference it using INVERTNEXT or not. You would have to turn clipping off, but why not certify the subfile first? I don't think it will be a problem anyway, because (...) (26 years ago, 26-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
