Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!super!udel!gatech!rutgers!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpl-opus!hpccc!hp-sde!hpfcdc!cunniff From: cunniff@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Ross Cunniff) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: IFF form for 2D drawings (again) Message-ID: <11640004@hpfcdc.HP.COM> Date: 8 Aug 88 15:03:18 GMT References: <11640003@hpfcdc.HP.COM> Organization: HP Ft. Collins, Co. Lines: 31 In article <2412@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> 3. Rectangles may still be rotated. >I don't see why you're specifically singling out rectangles here. It was a (feeble) attempt at a joke. The last time we went through this, 50% of the discussion was about PostScript, and 50% about whether rectangles should be rotatable... >Of course >rectangles should be rotatable... in fact *any* object should have a rotation >angle as part of its definition. A rectangle should be two points and an >angle. An ellipse should be a major and minor axis, a center point, and a >rotation angle. And so on... Actually, every object *is* rotatable; simply rotate the actual points of the data. Exceptions include text and symbols, which have explicit rotation angles in their definitions since their data is not manipulable in such a fashion. My rationale for precomputing the rotation is that it is faster to render objects whose position and rotation are precomputed rather than rotating and traslating them on the fly (although I am open to a convicing argument in favor of including a rotation angle for the objects...) > Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net > Have you hugged U your wolf today? Ross Cunniff Hewlett-Packard Colorado Language Lab ...{ucbvax,hplabs}!hpda!cunniff cunniff%hpda@hplabs.ARPA