Re: (Fwd) pfSegIsectX++at++!X - Beware

New Message	Reply	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Jim Helman (jimh++at++surreal)
Sat, 20 Nov 93 12:43:21 -0800

Next message: Jim Helman: "Re: Processor Selection"
Previous message: Jim Helman: "Re: backfacing and timing tests"
In reply to: Renee Strong: "backfacing and timing tests"

This is the first I've heard of it, but yes, the argument
order should have been the same. We try to be consistent
in API names and arguments just for this reason. But I
blew this one. The intersection API is cleaned up in the
next release (1.2), fewer arguments altogether and none
are type interchangable.

Sorry for the wasted time.

-jim helman

jimh++at++surreal.asd.sgi.com
415/390-1151

Next message: Jim Helman: "Re: Processor Selection"
Previous message: Jim Helman: "Re: backfacing and timing tests"
In reply to: Renee Strong: "backfacing and timing tests"

New Message	Reply	Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:50:06 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.