Am 15.11.2018 um 18:33 schrieb Le_Forgeron:

> Now, let's fight about trace_uv_map or any better spelling or wording.

Since you cannot compute an UV coordinate without computing an 
intersection, I would lean towards designing this as an extension to the 
existing `trace` function, via yet another optional parameter after the 
normal variable. That way we can avoid double work when the user wants 
both the intersection point's location and the UV coordinates.

Also, if for some reason we need to implement it as a separate function, 
I would prefer `trace_uv`. We don't have the `map` appendix in any other 
UV mapping related stuff (e.g. it is `uv_vectors`, not 
`uv_map_vectors`), so adding it here would be inconsistent.

Post a reply to this message