Semantics of flipping inks

• To: ncramer@BBN.COM
• Subject: Semantics of flipping inks
• From: John Aspinall <jga@harlequin.com>
• Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 11:59:57 -0400
• Cc: swm@harlequin.com, Lawrence.G.Mayka@att.com, clim@BBN.COM
• In-Reply-To: Nichael Cramer's message of Mon, 25 Apr 94 11:33:27 EDT <6935.199404251547@hilly.harlequin.com>

   Date:     Mon, 25 Apr 94 11:33:27 EDT
   From: Nichael Cramer <ncramer@BBN.COM>

   >From: Scott McKay <swm@harlequin.com>
   >The simplest model, which also has the benefit of being accurate, is
   >that drawing the same figure at the same place with the same flipping
   >ink twice is a no-op.  

   Please forgive a very tiny picked nit, but I just want to be sure I'm not
   missing something subtle here:

You're correct to pick up on this point.

   When you say "the same flipping ink" does this imply that there can be more
   than one "flipping-ink"?  Is there something other than what's bound on
   clim:+FLIPPING-INK+? 

In theory, you can make a flipping ink (with CLIM:MAKE-FLIPPING-INK
natch :-) which will turn ink1 into ink2, and vice versa.  However
it's undefined what this ink will do to any (other) third ink.

• Prev: Semantics of flipping inks
• Next: checking top-level function
• Index: CLIM Mailing list (1-Jun-94 to 30-Jun-95)
• Thread: CLIM Mailing list Index (1-Jun-94 to 30-Jun-95)