Subject:
|
Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:16:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
675 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> 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.
Yes.
> 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).
Huh? Isn't NOCLIP/CLIP exactly for "un-commenting" a section (including
subfile references) that hasn't been BFC checked?
/Lars
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
| (...) Hmm. To tell you the truth, I don't remember. My main use for it is to make sure patterns are rendered on the backside of transparent solids. I will *allow* that NOCLIP/CLIP can be used to allow non-compliant sections of code, but I don't feel (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec? [DAT]
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 13-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
|
|
|
|
