[LSC] Ambiguities in the draft BFC spec - syntax

[William Howard]

Isn't it?

I thought that would just change the winding to CW.

It is allowed by the current spec

W

-----Original Message-----
From: lsc-bounces at ldraw.org [mailto:lsc-bounces at ldraw.org] On Behalf Of Ross
Crawford
Sent: 15 October 2006 22:42
To: LDraw Standards Committee
Subject: Re: [LSC] Ambiguities in the draft BFC spec - syntax




William Howard wrote:
> The following syntax seems to cover all the bases
> 
> 0 BFC (NOCERTIFY | CERTIFY [CW|{CCW}])
> 0 BFC ([CLIP] [CW|CCW] | NOCLIP | INVERTNEXT)

I think that should be:

0 BFC (CLIP [CW|CCW] | NOCLIP | INVERTNEXT)

otherwise 0 BFC CW would be legal.

ROSCO
_______________________________________________
LSC mailing list
LSC at ldraw.org
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc