[LSC] Ambiguities in the draft BFC spec - syntax

[Ross Crawford]

Ah, OK. But it still allows just "0 BFC".

Maybe:

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

Could also be done shorter (I think) with:

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

But I think the former is more easily understood.

ROSCO

William Howard wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LSC mailing list
> LSC at ldraw.org
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc
>