| |
Steve Bliss wrote in message <375bc53d.299725817@lugnet.com>...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 07:06:40 GMT, Paul Gyugyi <paul@gyugyi.com> wrote:
>
> > The matrix math will not always invert, although if the matrix
> > is a pure rotation (with no scaling or shears) the transpose
> > of the matrix is the inverse.
> > A better solution would be for the inliner to apply a start
> > and a stop tag for each inlined file. Perhaps "0 INLINE START "
> > followed by some pseudo-random string (like mime-enclosures, if you've
> > ever seen them in-the-raw). Surround the inlined file with
> > identical tags and have the first line be the commented-out
> > original. In this way, the inlining operation would be completely
> > reversable.
>
> Adding a closing tag (and unique ID) is a good idea, and something that
> should have been done from the start.
>
> It would solve the problem of identifying the chunk of code to reverse out,
> and restoring the original referencing file would be do-able, but unless
> the transform matrix is invertable, the original subfile can't be
> recreated.
>
> Or the inliner could be recoded to wrap LDLite's 0 TRANSFORM meta-statement
> around the inlined code, instead of transforming the code directly. That
> would provide a completely reversible solution. But it wouldn't be
> LDraw-compatible. :( • In which case MPD would be better anyway.
>
> Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
39 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
|
|
|
|
