Subject:
|
Re: BFC Ceritfied Parts Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Oct 2002 21:35:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
839 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> I've notice a few parts on the Parts Tracker that are BFC certified, but
> some of their component primitives are not. Can justifiably I certify these
> parts?
Usually, but not always.
> If I can, why?
The key is that in BFC-land, the important part of the relation between
the parent file and the subfile is whether or not the parent wants to
invert the subfile.
If the subfile has an obvious orientation (cylinder, box, etc), then you
can safely certify the BFC'ed parent.
If the subfile does not have an obvious orientation, it's harder to BFC
the parent file. 2D primitives are an example of non-obvious
orientation. The (unwritten?) standard is that 2D primitives should be
oriented so the 'front face' is upward, but once they get rotated
around, it's hard(er) to determine which way the front is facing.
(In general, I'd recommend never using an INVERTNEXT statement if the
same effect can be achieved with a rotation).
> What if the part is BFC certified and then later on
> the primitive is BFC certified in the opposite direction it supposed to be
> in the part?
We'd fix the part at that point. But if we all stay within the
guidelines outlined above, that shouldn't happen.
I've got another batch of BFC'ed primitives to submit to the PT, but I'm
waiting until after the 2002-05 release comes out.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | BFC Ceritfied Parts Question
|
| I've notice a few parts on the Parts Tracker that are BFC certified, but some of their component primitives are not. Can justifiably I certify these parts? If I can, why? What if the part is BFC certified and then later on the primitive is BFC (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
