> This could be done...just pass the message object as a parameter to a
> member macro.

Sure, its one implementation. But not neccessary the one possible.

> 
> > Sure, they can.
> 
> That is what I meant: they can't not be like this. It wouldn't make
> sense for them to be any other way.
> 

OK. You are right.

> First, I don't think it would be any slower and not much more memory
> intensive. Some data could be shared, and only duplicated when
> absolutely necessary.

But its not a "copy" of object, then.

> And it wouldn't be more complicated...you have to add those objects to
> the scene in the first place, being able to modify objects which are
> already in the scene could easily get more complex than modifying
> variables, and it might not be as efficient in memory usage.

How you mean "add in the first place"?

If some object will support it (heightfield is able to change its small
part, for example) it will be very usable. All objects should support
basic things, such as transformation matrix change, texture change....


Disnel

Post a reply to this message