Proposal: pass object to convexPolyhedron#6
Merged
stockhuman merged 1 commit intomasterfrom Mar 17, 2020
Merged
Conversation
Member
|
Seems fine to me. I think it could even be an overload if there is a need to maintain backwards compatibility (not likely IMO) |
stockhuman
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 19, 2020
Silly mistake - facenormals never computed, even when not supplied
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
How do we feel about passing vertices, faces, normals and other information to the ConvexPolyhedron constructor as an object?
I feel as if it makes passing available data, especially with gaps in it, a little easier.