Chris Huff wrote in message ...
> This does look like a better syntax. If your technique allowed warps to
> be used as deformations, it would be perfect...maybe a compromise would
> be a "deform" warp, but there will be a lot of duplication, since people
> will want deforms that do the same things as many of the warps.
> Is your technique still limited to deformations that can be "reversed"?


yes I think there is compromise between my deform and warps
every deform has defined methods just like methods for objects
this way there could be simple to write type of warp
warp { deform { TYPE PARAMS } }
which call method not assigned to object
and calculate coordinates without duplication of code

I'll check it before release of patch

ABX

Post a reply to this message