Special:
|
[DAT] (requires LDraw-compatible viewer)
|
Subject:
|
Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Mar 2003 02:11:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
648 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Travis Cobbs writes:
> Thanks to everyone for the info.
>
> Now that I'm reading the spec, I have a question (and may have more later).
> In one part, it lists three conditions that must be met in order for BFC
> clipping to occur. The last condition is the following:
>
> 4 - No superfile has disabled clipping prior to referencing this
> 4 subfile.
>
> As far as I can tell by reading later in the document, this is actually not
> true. The description of the NOCLIP option says the following:
>
> 4 This option disables the clip-mode in the current file.
>
> The key phrase here is "current file". It doesn't say "current file and all
> subfiles". Since "current file" isn't in the list of definitions, I have to
> assume it means exactly what it says, which means no subfiles.
Sorry this wasn't clear. It does mean 'current file and all subfiles'.
More accurately, it means 'turn off clipping until/unless it gets turned
back on in this file, overriding any possibility of clipping in a subfile,
until the end of this file'.
> So, is NOCLIP supposed to disable clipping in subfiles as well as the
> current file, or just the current file? I hope it doesn't disable clipping
> in subfiles, because NOCERTIFY does exactly that already.
NOCERTIFY and NOCLIP are different. NOCERTIFY is a file-wide setting. You
can't have code like:
0 BFC CERTIFY CCW
1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 stuff.dat
0 BFC NOCERTIFY
1 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 morestuf.dat
CERTIFY and NOCERTIFY are mutually exclusive in a file. Logically,
NOCERTIFY means that the code is not BFC compliant.
NOCLIP (and CLIP) are action statements -- they turn clipping on and off.
They can occur multiple times in a file. The expectation is that code in a
NOCLIP zone is still BFC compliant (although I believe the spec allows for
wrapping NOCLIP/CLIP around non-compliant sections of code).
Steve
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
| (...) What if file has NOCLIP, and subfile has CLIP (with or without accompanying NOCLIP)? Couldn't that become confusing? Should it automagically revert back to NOCLIP when the subfile is finished? ROSCO (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
| (...) The spec should probably be updated to reflect this, I suppose. Please note that this comment and everything below is meant as constructive criticism. It's not meant as a complaint or a slight. I'd just like to see the spec improved. I'll even (...) (22 years ago, 13-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
| (...) Yes. (...) Huh? Isn't NOCLIP/CLIP exactly for "un-commenting" a section (including subfile references) that hasn't been BFC checked? /Lars (22 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
| Thanks to everyone for the info. Now that I'm reading the spec, I have a question (and may have more later). In one part, it lists three conditions that must be met in order for BFC clipping to occur. The last condition is the following: 4 - No (...) (22 years ago, 12-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
38 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
|
|
|
|
