Subject:
|
Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:27:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2847 times
|
| |
|
|
I saved this thread for later reading, and I've got a few questions
now. Sorry if I'm resurrecting something everyone thought was dead :D
Travis Cobbs wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > 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?
Once the parts library is fully BFC certified, will there ever
be a need to use CLIP or NOCLIP?
I'm not saying it's not worth implementing, I'm just curious
if anyone can think of a technical reason why a part might
want to enable/disable clipping even if all parts are certified?
>
> That way parts wouldn't have to be treated as special cases by the renderer.
> The BFC spec already says in the implementation section that the renderer
> should pretend that all superfiles are certified when it processes a part.
> A flag like FORCE-CERTIFY (or somesuch) would remove this special case.
I also think it's not the best idea to trigger different behavior
based on what directory a DAT file is located in. I think some sort
of flag in all part files would be useful. However I'm not sure (and
I haven't looked yet) that there isn't already some Flag we can key
on without adding another BFC level meta-command.
Is there a line in the header already that declares that file is
a 'Part' or a 'Primitive' ??
-Kyle
--
_
-------------------------------ooO( )Ooo-------------------------------
Kyle J. McDonald (o o) Systems Support Engineer
Sun Microsystems Inc. |||||
Enterprise Server Products Kyle.McDonald@Sun.COM
1 Network Drive BUR03-4630 \\\// voice: (781) 442-2184
Burlington, MA 01803 (o o) fax: (781) 442-1542
-------------------------------ooO(_)Ooo-------------------------------
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
| (...) There are currently a number of flags that indicate that a file is a part. The official one is only present in files that have been updated since it was made official. However, this isn't a problem, since any BFC-certified part is guaranteed (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
| (...) I thought it was dead 2 (or 3?) years ago. ;) (...) That's a pretty big 'once' you've got there. One problem I've had, revisiting old part files and applying BFC -- once you look at a file, you're also tempted to fix any/all errors you find in (...) (22 years ago, 22-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
| (...) This is really no different from the fact that the incoming certify state has to also be on. So a subfile won't be BFC'd unless all its parents are certified and it is certified as well. Also, presumably if you refer to a subfile in a section (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
