Re: Why does DEF do instancing? (fwd)

Chris Marrin ([email protected])
Wed, 18 Oct 1995 10:13:26 -0700

On Oct 17, 3:38pm, Z-John (Zijiang) Yang wrote:
> Subject: Re: Why does DEF do instancing? (fwd)
> ==>We want DEF ONLY
>
> I'd agree 100%.
>
> Still, I just can't believe people at SGI had come up with the idea of a
> instancing DEF. I am talking about serious design flaw here.
> We'd better fix vrml, soon. Otherwise, every single browser has to
stick
> to this defect forever.

I urge everyone to read Paul Strauss' posting on this subject. DEF is not
a function declaration, class definition or anything like that. It is
merely a way to name the node that comes after it. I'm sorry you want
VRML to be a programming language, but it is not.

Please, can we move on to other issues?

-- 
chris marrin      Silicon      http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE/WebSpace
(415) 390-5367    Graphics     http://rsality.sgi.com/employees/cmarrin_engr/
[email protected]   Inc.         


"It is well to remember that the entire universe,
 with one trifling exception, is composed of   others."   - John Andrew Holmes

  • Next message: Alex Okita/UB Networks: "Re: VRML / QuickTime VR marriage"
  • Previous message: Vassilis Bourdakis: "Re: VRML / QuickTime VR marriage"
  • Next in thesad: J Gwinner/VisNet, I: "Copy of: Re: Why does DEF do instancing? (fwd)"