|
 |
In 6.5.9 Object Modifiers, syntax description
OBJECT_MODIFIER:
...
no_shadow |
no_image |
no_reflection |
...
double_illuminate |
hollow |
...
Should read :
OBJECT_MODIFIER:
...
no_shadow |
no_image [ Bool ] |
no_reflection [ Bool ] |
...
double_illuminate [ Bool ] |
hollow [ Bool ] |
...
Mind that no_shadow does NOT accept a boolean - should this be changed ?
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
"Philippe Debar" <phd### [at] yahoo fr> wrote in message news:3D1### [at] yahoofr...
> In 6.5.9 Object Modifiers, syntax description
> . . .
> Should read :
>
> OBJECT_MODIFIER:
> ...
> no_shadow |
> no_image [ Bool ] |
> no_reflection [ Bool ] |
> ...
> double_illuminate [ Bool ] |
> hollow [ Bool ] |
> ...
Section 10.1.9 Object Modifiers should also be enhanced accordingly. Relevant bit
shown here:
OBJECT_MODIFIERS:
. . . & [no_image [BOOL]] & [no_reflection [BOOL]] & [inverse] &
[double_illuminate [BOOL]] & . . .
> Mind that no_shadow does NOT accept a boolean - should this be changed ?
For consistency, perhaps. Apparently you were just curious and tried each
possibility?
--
Robert Chaffe
http://www.donovansweb.com/~chaffe/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Robert Chaffe wrote:
>>Mind that no_shadow does NOT accept a boolean - should this be changed ?
>
> For consistency, perhaps. Apparently you were just curious and tried each
possibility?
Yes, for consistency.
Just curious ? No, but I like to check before posting. I mistakenly
wrote no_shadow on (bcs of the inconsistency), checked the doc. Then see
hollow with no [Bool] but remember using it with on and see the hollow
on example farther in the page. And I think I remember seeing on with
no_image and double_illuminate, so I tested to post a complete bug report...
[However that does not prevent me from making the most horrendous errors
as in my [template] isosurface post... I think I now know how I
constructed the false memory that made me post this aberation.]
Povingly,
Philippe
Post a reply to this message
|
|
