Gilles Tran wrote:
> 

> 3D829CE1.156832C4@pacbell.net...
> 
> > Would I do that?
> 
> Without any doubt.

Ouch! I'm wounded.
 
> A further enticement was the lack of identation in your answer, coming after
> perfectly indented >> ones. The addition of a uppercase "K" was a nice touch
> of originality too.

The wolf gives a sheepish grin.

> Now you may actually prefer the "keyword" solution but this would be getting
> annoyingly on-topic.

It is easier to search the docs for a partially remembered keyword than it is
to find a single float variable. In my advanced state of decay I need every
edge I can get to keep up with you younger folks.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:11:55 -0400, Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>
wrote:
> What do you mean?

I will use keywords.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

ABX <abx### [at] abxartpl> wrote:

> Any idea for nice name for interpolation without interpolation ?
> In my rewrtitten sphere_sweep module I have added additional types for
> interpolations. One of them is something like "no interpolation" - it makes
> set of spheres without connections - then in fact it works for spheres just

What do you mean by "set of spheres", the ones that control the shape of
the sweep or the sweep itself, with fewer spheres than infinity? :) That
would be important, because with "no interpolation" I would associate no
interpolation of the control spheres, which would result in no sweep at
all (or, if you want to make them visible, the control spheres
themselves).

I guess what you mean is throw away most of the spheres of the sweep,
something like the famous "merry.pov" picture, if you happen to know
this one? Then you have the same interpolation as with the sphere_sweep
as it is now: linear, cubic and b-spline, just the result will look
different. If you want to have this, I would find it more intuitive to
have a whole new keyword for this.

You may need to have additional keywords, anyways, since how do you
specify how many spheres you want in the sweep, or how closely they
should be packed?

One last thought: This would be not a "real" sphere sweep at all after
the definition by J.J. van Wijk, but that's a question left to the
philosophers, I guess. ;)

Jochen Lippert

-- 
No smilies were harmed in the making of this message ;)

Post a reply to this message