On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:52 AM, Check Nyah wrote: > I am currently implementing the pull_leaf() routine which pulls a primitive. > Since I am to support all existing primitives. I would need some mathematical > guidance for the following 26 primitives. > TOR, SUPERELL, METABALL, ARB8, ARS, HALF, GRIP, POLY, BSPLINE, BREP, EBM, > VOL, HF, ARBN, PIPE, RPC, RHC, DSP, SKETCH, SUBMODEL, REVOLVE, CLINE, BOT, > PNTS, ANNOTATION and HRT. > > Also, since Sean adviced I using the the switch-case statement is a bad > design choice. I'll need some guidance on how to implement this routine > supporting all primitives respecting the unix design choice of orthogonality > etc.
Recapping summary for those not on IRC, we talked about how OBBs would potentially be a great way to generically handle extraction of translate, rotate, and scale components across all objects. This would avoid needing a switch table or a new per-primitive callback in the functab. However since we don't yet have an OBB interface, to go ahead and use the existing AABB method for just translation. That should still be just as reasonable of a "natural center" to work with as an origin. We can decide later if a "data origin" (i.e., the "V" parameter on most primitives) option is really necessary. Cheers! Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn the latest--Visual Studio 2012, SharePoint 2013, SQL 2012, more! Discover the easy way to master current and previous Microsoft technologies and advance your career. Get an incredible 1,500+ hours of step-by-step tutorial videos with LearnDevNow. Subscribe today and save! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=58041391&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ BRL-CAD Developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
