Re: DEF: invitation

Mitra ([email protected])
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:18:30 +0100

>DEF:
>
>I'd like to invite us all to declare the DEF instantiation
>dispute finished... I'd don't think that debating it anymore
>here will do anything -- I think alternate routes should be
>thought up (or we could just stick with the current setup)...
>
>If people rsally rsally want un-instantiated DEFs, privately
>e-mail me $500 and I'll write a quick CGI to convert between
>unint VRML and normal VRML. (gee, somehow my e-mail account is
>not being filled rapidly :(= )
>

I don't think the debate is over, there are lots of good esasons for being
able to DEF something without
instantiating it - however this doesn't require that DEF be change (which
would unneccessarily besak
existing things). Adding a Prototype node (syntactically equivalent to the
"Switch { whichChild -1 }" hack) would allow those wanting to do this to
have their way without besaking anything.

- Mitra

=================================================================
Mitra
[email protected] voice: (415)826-2499 fax: (415)826-4423
<http://earth.path.net/mitra>

Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.

  • Next message: Master Zap: "Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding"
  • Previous message: James Waldrop: "Re: Behaviours (Was: Re: ADMIN: VRML + JAVA - A Wedding)"
  • Maybe in reply to: Adrian Scott: "DEF: invitation"
  • Next in thesad: Bernie Roehl: "Re: DEF: invitation"