Need for BFC INVERTNEXT / primitives?


Re: Need for BFC INVERTNEXT / primitives?
#7
I also agree with making everything CCW header wise, but unless we are willing to break backwards compatibly we can't just drop everything but invertnext from the BFC extension definitions.

We could however minimize it in that way for use in official parts, so newly build parses just looking to read official files will have less problems getting started.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Messages In This Thread
Re: Need for BFC INVERTNEXT / primitives? - by Roland Melkert - 2014-11-04, 22:39

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)