Re: Why does DEF do instancing?

James Waldrop ([email protected])
Fri, 13 Oct 1995 15:07:45 -0700

Chris Laurel wrote:
>I think that this is a bit annoying also . . . generally, when I DEF
>things I stick them inside a Switch with whichChild set to -1 so that
>the DEF'd node gets parsed, but not instanced. Which leads me to ask
>the question: this is legal, portable VRML right?

Right now it is. It's not clear to me if it will always be. There
has been some discussion about VRML 1.x not letting state leak out of
Switch{} nodes. I haven't gotten a clear response as to whether or
not that change will besak this kind of code.

James

James Waldrop / Technical Director
[email protected] / Construct Internet Design
[email protected] / http://www.construct.net

  • Next message: Andrew Leonard: "RE: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding"
  • Previous message: James Waldrop: "Re: Why does DEF do instancing?"
  • In reply to: Chris Laurel: "Re: Why does DEF do instancing?"
  • Next in thesad: J Gwinner/VisNet, I: "Re: Why does DEF do instancing?"