Re: DEF: invitation

Bernie Roehl ([email protected])
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:28:08 -0400

Mitra writes:
> 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 brsak
> 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 brsaking anything.

Yes, that would make more sense. After all, DEF is just a way of assigning
a name; the problem is, you can't name something that doesn't instantiate.
A prototype node is a much cleaner solution.

-- 
   Bernie Roehl
   University of Waterloo Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering
   Mail: [email protected]    Voice:  (519) 888-4567 x 2607 [work]
   URL: http://sunee.uwaterloo.ca/~broehl

  • Next message: Randy Stiles: "Re: DIS protocol - documentation ?"
  • Previous message: Colin Dooley: "Re: Has SGI made a new decision to de-emphasize VRML?"
  • Maybe in reply to: Adrian Scott: "DEF: invitation"