Subject:
|
Re: Line in the Sand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:14:51 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
(Rui.Martins@)spamless(link.pt)
|
Viewed:
|
2025 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Rui Martins wrote:
> Actually, I was thinking of CERTIFY, like a enable of the specific
> new metacommands.
>
> Example:
> If you have a
> 0 CERTIFY BFC
>
> would mean Enable or take into account the GFC related commands. besides
> the fact that it certifies that file has beeing checked for point
> order (bowties) and winding.
>
> So the certify statement is a little bit more powerfull than just stating
> that it complies to the some fact.
>
> And following this, I am in favor of replacing CERTIFY with EXTENSIONS,
> since it makes alot more sence, with this reasoning.
>
> Besides this could be a great help for DEBUG, just remove (or comment) the
> CERTIFY/EXTENSION line (or remove the particular extension, when you have
> more than one) and all the extension MetaCommands are ignored, without
> having to comment them all.
>
> Rui Martins
I forgot to add that you can have a file that is 'certified', but due
to its nature (the lego part/sub-part) no clipping is applicable, but it
can have correct point order (no bowties) and a defined winding (the
default, or some expecifically insert in the file '0 WINDING CW').
And also that EXTENSION (or CERTIFY) is strictly local, does not affect
other files in the rendering tree.
Rui Martins
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Line in the Sand
|
| Actually, I was thinking of CERTIFY, like a enable of the specific new metacommands. Example: If you have a 0 CERTIFY BFC would mean Enable or take into account the GFC related commands. besides the fact that it certifies that file has beeing (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
85 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
