>Using the extensibility method in the SPEC I think we could add
>a method for describing new nodetypes. We would need some way
>to represent variables.
I wouldn't use the word "variables"; indeed, that confused me quite
a bit when I first read this message. Actually, your example is
showing (essentially) the notion of adding new *classes* to VRML,
and *parameters* to those classes:
>NEW IceCreamCone {
> fields [SFFloat radius %rad, SFFloat height %hi]
> TransformSeparator {
> Sphere { radius %rad }
> Translation { translation blahblahsomenumbers
> rotation blahblahsomenumbers
> }
> cone { bottomradius %rad
> height %hi
> }
> }
> }
>CUST IceCreamCone {radius 2 height 3}
Not a bad idea; it's a rather simple, elegant way of coming up with
parameterizable compound objects. (I don't like the "NEW" and "CUST"
keywords much, but that's a detail.) I'd love to get an opinion from
folks like Gavin and Kevin, who have presumably done a fair amount
of node extension in Inventor, on what strengths and weaknesses they
see in this idea. (This seems somewhat related to the Inventor Node
Kit concept, but my understanding of how that works is still a bit
vague...)
-- Justin
Who finds this one quite pretty
conceptually, but wants some practical
opinions...
Random Quote du Jour:
"Tradition is wonderful if it has a sound basis and still makes
sense in current context. Traditionally, genocide has been a
pretty common real-world response to having neighbors you don't
like. Currently, though, it is pretty widely frowned upon."
-- Grimmund Blackwing