Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Another is "changing a 
> previously-defined translate" (that's not currently possible in SDL, and 
> it's a bad idea anyway).

  Somehow I feel you are a bit talking about apples and oranges here.

  Of course there's no way of "changing a previously defined translate"
because there's no such thing as a "previously defined translate". As I
said in the other post, a translation is not a property of the object,
it's an operation applied to the object (in other words, in object-oriented
terms, a translation is not a member variable of the object, it's a member
function). You either apply it (so that it has some effect) or you don't.
You can't go "back in time" and apply it in a different way once you have
applied it already.

  (Technically speaking you can later apply a new set of transformations
which cancel out the earlier translation, so the effect is the same as if
the earlier translation had not been performed at all, but this is a
rather different thing at a basic conceptual level.)

  I can't really see what is the problem people are seeing here. I don't
see any problem in objects in the new SDL having transformation functions
which work in the same way as in the current SDL.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message