Warp wrote:

> Micha Riser <mri### [at] gmxnet> wrote:
>> This has the consequence that a double-inverted union results in a merge!
> 
>   If you think about it, that's exactly the correct behaviour.

I never said there was anything wrong. 

> 
>   An inverted union is everything outside the union. Now the "outside"
> is everything that was "inside" the union. "Outside" doesn't have any
> surfaces in it, but it's just empty space. Inverting a union implicitly
> "removes" all the inner surfaces (because they are not inner anymore).

Hmm, I better like the idea that there is no correct inversion of unions.

- MIcha

Post a reply to this message