2011/6/14 Jayesh Salvi <jayeshsa...@gmail.com> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Thomas Paviot <tpav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Jayesh, > > > > You might of course be aware of the Shapesmith project > > (http://www.shapesmith.net), which is at some point much more advanced > than > > 3DTin (basic primitives, as well as boolean operations are already > > available). What are your plans for 3DTin? > > I believe that's the project from @bjnortier.
Yes, absolutely. > I knew about the initial > post he wrote about this project back in January. But I didn't know > that he had released it under this name. I wonder how I missed it. > Thanks for pointing it out. > > Yes, I do have similar goals with 3DTin too. But there are certain > differences in our approaches. > > 3DTin currently provides an interactive environment to manipulate 3D > objects - mainly move them around, rotate, flip, etc. But it's > difficult to provide any more advanced features through this > interactive interface without confusing the user. My goal is to > separate the advanced modeling features from the interactive > environment and make them available as scripting language - like > Cadmium. > Ok. > > P.S. Thomas, could you elaborate on why you said it might be hazardous > to switch from CGAL to PythonOCC in your first reply? > I mean 'hazardous' because there might be a confusion between the CGAL and pythonOCC (BRep) data models. Reading your github repos, I see that the Sphere class inherits from Polyhedron. But a sphere is *not* a polyhedron, whereas its tesselation is. Polyhderons have flat faces and straight edges. According to me, 'simple' API means: easy to learn, enabling few lines of well readable code to achieve expectations. It must be semantically explicit and unambiguous (which is not the case if you make the Sphere and Cylinder classes inherit from PolyHedron). Regards, Thomas
_______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
