From: Alan W. I. <ir...@be...> - 2001-12-15 18:32:47
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Maurice LeBrun wrote: > When I looked into this last spring (fixing several bugs in the process), I > concluded we might be better off with a new algorithm. The original algorithm > only follows lines, not regions. If one endpoint of the line is hidden but > the other is not, it merely calculates the intersection point and draws from > that point. Extending this to 2D and getting it right does not look easy to > me. The existing shade extension is clever but I found the boundary > conditions too messy to be able to make solid headway without considerable > effort. Maurice, I am having trouble interpreting your words here since the previous posts in this thread discussed both 2D and 3D shading which have separate algorithms. I believe (although I am not sure) that part of your paragraph may refer to a better algorithm for the 2D shading (which might be a good idea, but there is currently no bug in that case), and part of the paragraph to 3D shading (which does have a bug). Could you please clarify? I am particularly interested in whether you think a new 3D shading algorithm is required to fix the 3D shading bug. If so, I will drop it from the release wish list. Alan |