Kelumden <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> We have here a computer who can perform all the calculations for us so it seems
> to me quite reasonable to tell the computer: "take object A and put in on object
> B so that point x of A merge with point y of B". You still need union{} to treat
> the two assembled objects as one ...

  So you want to apply the same transformation to both objects, plus an
additional translate to the first one? Still sounds like a union{} to me.

union
{
    object { ObjectB }
    object { ObjectA translate PointOnB }
    transform { ObjectBTransformations }
}

  If you definitely must keep them as separate objects for whatever reason,
you can define a transform identifier and apply it to both objects.

  It's not possible to add a new keyword which would say "give me the
transformations which were applied to this object" because there might
not be such transformations stored anywhere. They might have been applied
directly eg. to the coordinates of the object and hence are effectively lost
and unretrievable afterwards (because it's not possible to differentiate
between the original coordinates and the transformations applied to them).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message