I see my mistake, thanks. I was going on the old fashioned 'bounded_by'
which may have been used similarly to the way 'clipped_by' is used. I
neglected the fact that this isn't a certainty as a part of CSG since it
doesn't always keep just the parts within it's boundary (haphazard
containment).
Although that 'bounded_by' has nothing to do with CSG is an incorrect
thing to say. Manual bounding is a desireable thing for differences and
merges to contain just the visible portions and not needlessly trace
rays of invisible parts. 


Nieminen Mika wrote:
> 
> Bob Hughes <inv### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> : Far as I've known 'clipped_by' behaves similarly to a cut command in an
> : image processing program, ie. extracts the selected region, discarding
> : it. I too have thought it opposite the usual way you would want to use
> : it, but this seems correct if thought of right. Clipping snips off from
> : the clipped object, unless the surface of the clipping object is
> : inversed thus making for a collecting instead. Basically it's a
> : 'difference' and 'merge' together sort of thing in my view. By the way I
> : think 'bounded_by' is intended to be the inversed clipped_by isn't it?
> 
>   No.
>   clipped_by works exactly like the intersection CSG except that it doesn't
> render the surface of the second (ie. the clipping) object.
>   bounded_by has little, if nothing, to do with CSG. You may think about it
> as if it worked like an intersection CSG (but better not since you may get
> surprises in some cases).
> 
> --
> main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
> ):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message