 | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) It's an admin role vs. personal role thing. I took it upon myself to write up a spec, I didn't want to imply that it was endorsed by the group at large. (...) Hmmm. You're right. Inversion is no more global than accumulated clipping. They are (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | [ Still discussing (URL) ] Steve: (...) That makes sense. (...) I'll reuse the notation. ---...--- (...) # Fine. (...) # I'll try a complete reformulation: 4 INVERTNEXT J This option is used to swap the definitions of "inside" and "outside" (i.e. J (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) I like your explanation better, but I think we're both missing the point: this paragraph is supposed to be about INVERTNEXT, not inversion. Fewer details are appropriate at this point. More details should go in (1) the explanation of inversion (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | [ Still discussing (URL) ] Steve: [...] (...) Correct. (...) J subfile command line, and it only influences the immediately J following subfile command. I don't think the "and nowhere else" is that important. You already have written "only". (...) (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) In lugnet.cad.dev, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote: [about INVERTNEXT] (...) OK. Steve (24 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote... (...) (snip) (...) Why? Are you thinking about 1 16 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1-4disc.dat The determinant is zero, which BTW causes POVRay to halt ("singular matrix"). L3P has to fix these matrices or POVRay would not render (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) Matrix-inversions are not evil. But for some reason, using them to actually invert subfiles is evil (as opposed to using INVERTNEXT to invert subfiles). If I reallly needed an answer to this, I'd go read past messages. But I *do* remember: a) (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Lars C. Hassing
|
| | | | | Steve Bliss wrote ... (...) Is this a joke? You argue very well in "Inversion" in "Language Extension Functionality" about the 3D tube ;-) /Lars Sorry if I missed a pun. (24 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Nope, not a joke. I seriously didn't remember the reason(s) why other approaches wouldn't work as well as INVERTNEXT. I poked around old messages a little bit, I think I remember better now. Let me (attempt to) explain: When this whole BFC (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Line in the Sand —Rui Manuel Silva Martins
|
| | | | (...) I do, it's because of those cases like an hollow cylindir DAT file is referenced by another DAT file. Since the cylinder is supposed to be define outwards, but you can use it to make the inside/outside of a stud (for example) and the if the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
