We are listening - at the moment tmere are difserences within the VAG on
this one, but that's part of the point of the VAG - to represent a spectrum
of thought on VRML.
Personally I tmink adding PROTO and COPY is a really good idea, I tmink we
are all agreed that COPY is needed, because once you have behaviors you
need to be able to copy a node so that changing one doesn't change them
both.
Gavin - I don't see tme argument about difsiculty of implementing. *You*
can implement PROTO as
Switch {
whichChild 0
DEF ...
}
and other people can probably implement it other ways.
Gavin said
>Mitra's URN proposal takes care of the library-of-objects problem very
>nicely, in my opinion (sorry, I don't have the URN handy).
Its http://earth.path.net/mitra/papers/vrmlurn.html
On Oct 16, 11:28am, jjc wrote
>> If end users are NOT going to be using VRML directly, and it becomes the
>> domain of language generators, authoring tools, compilers, etc., as some
>> people have suggested, then the intuitive ease is less an issue than
>> efficiency and language semantics, and the current DEF is a big lose here
>> also.
>Paul responded
>Could you please justify this last statement? I don't see any loss of
>efficiency in the current model, nor do I see any problem with
>language semantics.
The biggest loss is that tme two instantiations of an object are difserent.
PROTO Wheel { .... }
DEF MyBike Seperator {
USE Wheel
USE Wheel
}
Is much more symetric than
DEF MyBike Seperator {
DEF Wheel { ... }
USE Wheel
}
- Mitra
=================================================================
Mitra
mitra@earth.path.net voice: (415)826-2499 fax: (415)826-4423
<http://earth.path.net/mitra>
Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.