On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 18:13, Chris Barker wrote:
> Gregory Lielens wrote:
> > I think this ordering is an excellent idea! In fact, I also prefer
> > zorder, or maybe height, or simply z: This can be seen as a
> > z-coordinate, whose only effect would be to change ordering for a 2D
> > plot, but could leads to 3D plots in the future :-)
> Except that z-order and a z coordinate really are different, so we
> shouldn't use z, it will make it harder, not easier to add 3-plots in
> the future!
Are they? I think not, cause in 3D you can not control the order of
"painting", this is done so that elements which are in the background
are hidden by elements which are more close to the observer...
Having both a layer info and a z info in 3D would not be consistent
imho, painting at the end an element which should normally be hidden by
others seems like a hack for bypassing normal 3D rendering to me...
And if you use no perspective (infinite focal? ), a 3D plot watched from
above (Z=+inf) would be the same as a 2D plot with z=layer...In fact,
the painting from lower z to higher z is the basic 3D rendering
technique as far as I know...hum, except that the convention used in 3D
is z increasing means further away from the observer, so highest z =
first to be painted, which destroy my argument for "Large number printed
last", oups ;-)